In this day and age it is easy for most to get caught up in the gung-ho mentality of fighting

terrorism at any cost and by any means necessary to ensure liberty and safety. Unfortunately, this

zealous drive for a sense of security has blindly led many to elect representatives that do not serve the

interests of the represented and to demonize anyone who dares ask questions or demand answers

when they should be given. The course of human history should not be determined by a small minority

in power who “know” best, and the reigns of control over lives, resources, and nations should not simply

be handed over to the unchecked, unquestioned hands of tyrants behind closed doors. The day that a

populace subscribes to a paradigm in which sustaining a routine becomes more important than the

welfare of mankind as a whole is the day when global compartmentalization has succeeded and true

control over the entire planet becomes a plausible enterprise.

Having grown up in the dirt-street-villas of Argentina, I repeatedly heard about the impact of the

“milicos” on the nation and the following is a synopsis of the events. After the death of three-term,

controversial Argentine president Juan Peron, his wife took office but was not a strong political leader.

This allowed for a military coup in 1976 in which a junta, or committee of military leaders governed the

nation. Isabela Martinez de Peron was kept in protective custody while a seven year-long campaign by

the junta sought to quench opposition of its own citizens by any means necessary. During the junta’s

reign, many Argentine citizens, including critics of the government or anyone with strong political views,

were kidnapped. The death toll resulting from this regime is said to range anywhere from 10,000 to

30,000 people. The “disappeared”, as they are known, were taken to secret government detention

centers and the crimes committed against them include torture, rape, and murder. These historical

events are known as the “dirty war” which was a term coined by the junta itself, and in trials held in

1985 many militant leaders defended their case claiming that the dirty war using multiple methods such

as large-scale torture and rape was necessary to “maintain social order” due to the fact that the nation

was in “civil war.” As global public opinion and civil rights groups grew in their disapproval for these acts,
the junta decided to redeem themselves and gain support from the people by launching a war in 1982

that would regain control over the Islas Malvinas, or Falkland Islands. Originally, the Argentine people

rallied behind the government but as time passed this plan backfired as large protests were held against

the war, which lasted only 74 days and left 750 Argentine and 255 British soldiers dead, along with

11,400 prisoners of war held by the British military. Falkland Islands War. (2010). In Encyclopædia

Britannica. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/200775/Falkland-Islands-War. During the war, Argentine

media hoped to boost morale by having many publications report false information about the status of

the war. Several magazines posted fake pictures of British ships in flames and gave false eye-witness

reports that the Argentine were winning. Madres de Plaza de Mayo, an organization of women who

became political activists after having lost their children during the dirty war, were threatened to death

by ordinary citizens in pro-war hysteria. Three British reporters who had come to Argentina to cover the

opposing side of the issue were put in prison until the end of the conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War. The United Kingdom regaining control of the islands marked

the death of the junta who then retracted their ban of opposing political parties and gave control back

to civilians when Raul Alfonsin was elected president in 1983 .

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/argentina.htm. Head of the junta, Jorge Rafael Videla,

and his navy commander, Admiral Massera, were both found on homicide and other charges and were

sentenced to life in jail. Three others, including militant successor of Videla as president, were given

lesser charges and all others were acquitted.

http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/all/argentina/fargentina1976.htm. While the human rights violations

perpetrated by the junta caused US President James Carter to withdraw military aid to Argentina,

declassified documents obtained by the National Security Archive in 2003 prove that Secretary of State

Henry Kissinger and other high-ranking US officials told Argentine militants to hurry up and finish the
dirty war while US aid was still flowing. In one of the documents, Ambassador Robert Hill states, “When

(Argentine Foreign Minister Guzzetti) had seen Kissinger in Santiago, the latter had said he 'hoped the

Argentine Govt could get the terrorist problem under control as quickly as possible.' Guzzetti said that he

had reported this to President Videla and to the cabinet, and that their impression had been that the

USG's overriding concern was not human rights but rather that Government of Argentina 'get it over

quickly.'"

The following are excerpts from a memorandum of conversation between Kissinger and

Guzzetti,

"’Foreign Minister Guzzetti: The terrorist organizations have been dismantled. If this direction continues,

by the end of the year the danger will have been set aside. There will always be isolated attempts, of

course… ‘

The Secretary: ‘Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned

view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a

civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed the

better.’"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB104/index.htm

The issue of considering the proper context that Kissinger talks about is extremely important

when dealing with military conflict and resolving insurgency, however, it is crucial that we not allow

idealistic policies such as “defeating terrorism” to destroy the lives of countless innocent people that

pose no threat to anyone, as has been the case under direction of the State sometimes deliberately, and

sometimes simply as collateral damage. Of course the argument is always present that during war,

there will be innocent casualties, but it should be of utmost concern that thorough measures be taken

to prevent them. Such controversial matters can be exemplified in the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) use

of white phosphorus in the Palestinian territories. White phosphorus, a material which causes burns
upon contact and potentially death by inhalation or ingestion, has been widely used by American and

British forces in war via bombs, artillery, mortars and short-range missiles. Although it is legal for armies

to use this weapon against military adversaries, many international agreements including the Geneva

Convention forbid the use of white phosphorus against civilians. While the Pentagon openly states that

WP is used against enemy combatants, Israel is known to use American-given WP in Palestinian

residential neighborhoods because Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist organization according to the US,

Israel, and 3 other nations, operates in civilian areas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKgph9PV3SA

In a tactical war where violent enemies hide amidst civilians in mosques, schools, hospitals, etc.,

potential IDF methods include air strikes, sending in soldiers, or WP, which can serve as a smoke screen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7vqnKSG69w Statements submitted by Amnesty International to

the UN Human Rights Council bring up Israel’s use of WP during Operation “Cast Lead” , and their

research concludes that the “Israeli Forces continued to employ tactics and weapons that resulted in

growing numbers of civilian casualties for the entire duration of the military offensive. This was despite

Israeli officials knowing from the first days of the military offensive that civilians were being killed and

wounded in significant numbers.”

A similar scenario recently generated much commotion due to a video released by WikiLeaks, an

organization which makes public documents that are considered sensitive, classified, or that are

otherwise kept secret from the public. The video, shot in Baghdad in 2007, is footage shot from a US

Apache helicopter that shows several people walking around the street with camera equipment, which

was mistaken for AK47s and RPGs. The soldiers on board the Apache sinisterly laughed and sought any

reason to engage with the men on the ground, as the audio reveals a pilot saying, “All you gotta do is

pick up a weapon.” Although no shots were fired by the men on the ground, the first wave of fire kills

several, and a van later stopped to pick up the wounded leading to a second wave of helicopter fire killing

the people in the van and critically injuring two children inside. Twelve people were killed including two
journalists employed by Reuters. “In the aftermath the US military claimed that some AK-47s and a

grenade launcher had been found at the scene. (Defense analyst Pierre) Sprey comments that, in the

course of the subsequent cover-up, the weapons may well have been planted, LAPD style.   According to

Reuters their men had been working on a story about weight lifting when they heard about a military

raid in the neighborhood, and decided to drive there to check it out. Local witnesses say there was no

fire fight anywhere near where they were gunned down by the Apaches.”

Since the initial response from the US government was to keep this occurrence as far away from

public knowledge as possible, further explanation had to be given once WikiLeaks brought the video to

light. “U.S. military denied that any error had taken place, its version of events faithfully cited by the

New York Times under the headline ‘2 Iraqi Journalists Killed as U.S. Forces Clash With Militias’:

“According to the [U.S. military’s] statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were

hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and

attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine [sic]

insurgents were killed.” http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04092010.html

It is clearly shown in the footage that this was not the case. Once again we are presented with the issue

of identifying the enemy and the subsequent loss of innocent, civilian life due to what is euphemistically

regarded as miscalculations and operational errors.

Patrick Tillman was a professional American football player who, after the September 11 attacks,

turned down a $3.6 million contract with the Cardinals and put his new marriage in hiatus to enlist with

the Army due to his strong feelings for the cause of defending the United States. His family was told by

the Army that in 2004 he was killed by friendly fire in an epic, Hollywood style scenario in which “his

convoy had been ambushed and he had charged up a hill, forcing the enemy to withdraw and saving the

lives of his fellow Rangers.”

 Five weeks later Army investigations determined that Tillman had been killed due to friendly fire

and had known so from the very beginning, but had kept the family in the dark. Medical examiners

concluded Tillman had been shot in the head three times from 10 yards away, and the coroner refused

to sign the autopsy for months because his examination did not match up with the scenario described by

the Army’s original story. His uniform was burnt, which is against Army protocol, and the eyewitness

statements that earned him a Silver Star were altered. When Secretary of the Army Pete Green was

asked who had altered the statements, his reply was, “Well, that's one of the questions that we will

never completely answer.” According to the Associated Press, "Army attorneys sent each other

congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal

friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments." When

discussing the topic with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s Countdown, General Wesley Clark said, “If there's

even a hint that there was something like a homicide or a murder in this case, it should've been fully

investigated and proved or disproved…” and that the decisions that his case shouldn’t be investigated,

but instead just given the Silver Star and claimed as a war hero came from “all the way to the top,

because Pat Tillman was a political symbol used by the administration when it suited their purposes.”

In a frighteningly similar way that the junta tried to generate chauvinism by creating a foreign

foe that the citizens could rally against, September the eleventh was a clear example of how fear was

used to manufacture a threat in order to prop up a war based on resources. Argentina’s widely read

magazine Gente published on its cover the supersized headline “We’re winning!” during fascist

occupation when Argentine forces were being decimated without a struggle; the cry for wolf echoed in

the northern hemisphere decades later and stirred pro-war sentiment with the clarion call of “WMDs!”

Military intervention in Iraq was spurred by what was described as a direct threat to all free

nations. Saddam Hussein was said to have given aid to the Afghani Taliban, largely blamed for the

September 11 attacks. Theoretically, there should be serious analysis of a situation before launching
multi-billion dollar wars with more deaths than anyone will ever fully document, however, all US

government officials needed to begin a reign of military occupation lasting to this day was a red herring

parroted by a controlled media system.

September the 11th, 2001 is still a topic of heated debated among people who still acknowledge

the fact that there is more to history than clear-cut, pre-digested propaganda. Many questions are still

unanswered but what is certain is that the mainstream news had a very concrete explanation of what

had happened and who the perpetrators were. Their storyline was ready to be sold to the afraid and

ready-to-act public as media outlets reported on the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 ever

before its collapse. The fact that no other steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire,

the fact that the hole left in the Pentagon was no bigger than 16 feet in diameter (much smaller than the

width of a Boeing 757), the fact that there were no plane parts or corpses found at the scene in

Pennsylvania, the fact that the Twin Towers collapsed in a demolition manner with no obstruction, the

fact that thermate was found and documented in video and satellite images at the site, the fact that

NORAD was told to stand down and not shoot the planes down by Dick Cheney, the fact that the

majority of the authors of the 9/11 official Commission Report believe further investigations should be

held, are all offensively ignored by a government all too willing to reap the benefits of a counter-attack

on the third-world masterminds of a plot so convoluted that it makes the best Hollywood movie seem

far-fetched.

Maintaining a consistent level of impartiality is one of the most difficult tasks a human being can

accomplish, but it is imperative that we do so, for logic and reason are great allies of compassion and

consideration. Emotion lends itself all too often among cultures of the world to manipulation and

control, making it the biggest co-conspirator of injustice. Passion and empathy, when founded in

reason, can be the solution to suffering if it ever were to be applied voluntarily on a mass scale. The
truth is many people are willfully ignorant and will continue to be so until it hits home; all an optimist

can do is hope that by the time the world is ready for change, it will still have the ability.