Augusto Pinochet dies

[Siblesz]

Augusto Pinochet dies, Chilean TV reports




Controversial former dictator, 91, had heart attack last week

SANTIAGO, Chile - Ex-dictator Augusto Pinochet, who ruled Chile from 1973 to 1990 and spent his old age fighting human rights, fraud and corruption charges, died on Sunday a week after suffering a heart attack, Chilean television reported.

Pinochet, 91, grabbed power in a coup and went on to become the best known of the South American dictators of the 1970s and 1980s. Under his regime, more than 3,000 people died in political violence, many at the hands of repressive secret police.

He was accused of dozens of human rights violations but a lengthy effort to bring him to trial in Chile failed as his defense lawyers successfully argued that he was too ill to face charges.

Despite Pinochet’s human rights record, many Chileans loved him and said he saved Chile from Marxism.

But even many loyal supporters abandoned him after it came out in 2004 that he had stashed some $27 million in secret off-shore bank accounts that were under investigation at the time of his death.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16139367/

And another of the great shakers of history passes on.

[Total Warrior X]

I wish the bastard died violently...

[Siblesz]

I wish the bastard died violently...

Would it change anything? Or would it just be for morbid emotionalist diversion?

[Tom Paine]

I wish the bastard died violently...

I just wish he'd stood trial before kicking the bucket, personally...

[Siblesz]

Hehe... justice is such a silly illusion.

[_TheChevalier_]

I wish the bastard died violently...

I don't think that he died violently, he had a "refall" of the heart problem after recovering in an awesome way (typicall of "dying" people), I personally don't have hate or love on him, I mean I hate of the crimes and all of that, but he save us from being other Cuba (sorry if I'm offending communists, but those are my thinkings) so with this another period of Chilean history has been closed and now in the local news are some Anti-Pinochet Groups in Santiago's downtown that are celebrating his death, I think that I can understand them, and in the outsides of Pinochet's deathplace are some Pinochet fans crying and "celebrating" of the good things that he did in their opinion

[Libertine]

Pinochet was a friend of Britain.

BUT

He was the kind of friend that one uses then throws away, despite what Lady Maggy wants to say.

[mrjesushat]

Well, this will make it even harder to try him for human rights violations, I suspect.

[Tom Paine]

Illusion, yes, but then so are human rights, and I'd prefer to keep them too; silly, definitely not.

[Siblesz]

Illusion, yes, but then so are human rights, and I'd prefer to keep them too; silly, definitely not.

If it makes you happy.

[Hansa]

Should have died in the Hague or a Chilean prison. Not a violent or painful death, but he should have died as a criminal.

[Tom Paine]

He did, just not a convicted criminal.

[Aristophanes]

Pinochet did nothing a dozen monarchs we revere wouldn't have done...except he also avoided getting his nation stuck in any wars, fruitless or not.

Pinochet is hated ONLY because he replaced a soft-commie, and for no other reason. I see no such hatred on the forums for people like Mugabe, Sese Seko, Castro, Arap Moi or Idi Amin who destroyed their nations AND killed/kill far more of their people. But then again, those people had many sympathizers on the left...

[mrjesushat]

Pinochet did nothing a dozen monarchs we revere wouldn't have done...except he also avoided getting his nation stuck in any wars, fruitless or not.

Who is this "we" you speak of? Anyone else around here revere brutal tyrants? If so, please step forward, so that your lack of concern for human rights may be noted.

Pinochet is hated ONLY because he replaced a soft-commie, and for no other reason.

I'd imagine that the families of his victims would regard this as an asanine statement.

I see no such hatred on the forums for people like Mugabe, Sese Seko, Castro, Arap Moi or Idi Amin who destroyed their nations AND killed/kill far more of their people.

Most of those people are not very well liked. And Castro is a figure on whom the historical jury is still out. Of course, we're all welcome to believe whatever statistical data we want. That's how religion and tribalism work, you'll remember pointing out, elsewhere.

But then again, those people had many sympathizers on the left...

A wonderfully irrational and biased statement.

If someone sees a utilitarian purpose to the work of a rightist dictator, and is a rightist, it is considered a political/historical opinion. But if someone defined as "leftist" sees utilitarian value in the efforts of, say, a Castro, that individual is a "sympathizer". At what point does a political position cease to be a matter of reason, and become a matter of mental illness? Who can say?

Anyway, Augusto Pinochet should be pickled, flown to the Hague, and tried en corpus for crimes against humanity. Then he should be burned at the stake, as a witch, regardless of the outcome of his trial, because anyone who can be dead and simultaneously stand trial is obviously a witch.

[TheKwas]

Also, exactly what leftist has any sympathy for Seko? The man was an ally of America (who was it's 3rd largest donar of Aid), a stauch anti-communist, and was hated by the Soviet Union.

[Aristophanes]

Who is this "we" you speak of? Anyone else around here revere brutal tyrants? If so, please step forward, so that your lack of concern for human rights may be noted.

That's what's called a 'leading question'. Do many people on this forum have respect for historical kings, rulers, etc... you bet, but they probably wouldn't characterize that as 'reverence for brutal tyrants'...which is how their deeds would be interpreted in a modern context.

And that's the danger of living in a nice safe place like America circa 2006 and criticizing people from several decades in the past who presided over much different conditions.
Often the path to stability in deeply troubled and strife-riven nations requires a certain degree of brutality and ruthlessness.

I'd imagine that the families of his victims would regard this as an asanine statement.

They're at liberty to think what they want.

Most of those people are not very well liked.

There aren't monthly threads about them, or others like them. Why the silence? Milosevic got better treatment than Pinochet.

And Castro is a figure on whom the historical jury is still out.

Isn't that a convenient way to avoid having an opinion that can be critically examined? Castro is certainly responsible for as many deaths as Pinochet, and didn't exactly propel his country into the future, so why is the historical jury out on him? Hell, he didn't step down, or re-institute democracy either.

Of course, we're all welcome to believe whatever statistical data we want. That's how religion and tribalism work, you'll remember pointing out, elsewhere.

Context? I have no idea why you've written these two sentences.

A wonderfully irrational and biased statement.

Rather than simply calling it irrational or biased, why don't you provide facts to disprove the statement?

If someone sees a utilitarian purpose to the work of a rightist dictator, and is a rightist, it is considered a political/historical opinion. But if someone defined as "leftist" sees utilitarian value in the efforts of, say, a Castro, that individual is a "sympathizer". At what point does a political position cease to be a matter of reason, and become a matter of mental illness? Who can say?

I could call this 'wonderfully irrational and biased', and that would be in keeping with the tenor of the 'debate'.

'Leftist' and 'rightist' are nebullous terms apart from their strong emotional significance. It's a faint bit amusing that the accepted definition lumps social liberalism and economic illiberalism together, and social illiberalism and economic liberalism together; but, of course, that's not the whole story. A person becomes a 'leftist' or 'rightist' based solely on the critic's judgement of which is more important, social or economic freedoms. So, a person can be a 'leftist' who is economically and socially illiberal if the critic sympathizes more with the economic sphere; or, a person who is both socially and economically liberal can be a 'leftist' if the critic sympathizes more with the social sphere. There are, of course, other permutations.

My view of the spectrum is that freedom, whether social or economic, belongs on one side, and that the absence of freedom, whether social or economic, belongs on the other. Following that definition, most dictators are much closer to the not free end than the free end, but may be confused, through our ambiguous contemporary political lexicon, as being light-years apart.

Anyway, Augusto Pinochet should be pickled, flown to the Hague, and tried en corpus for crimes against humanity. Then he should be burned at the stake, as a witch, regardless of the outcome of his trial, because anyone who can be dead and simultaneously stand trial is obviously a witch.

I won't respond to the last sentence, as it is simply inflammatory.

[IronBrig4]

I won't respond to the last sentence, as it is simply inflammatory.

Hey, that was a nice pun.

As to what you said about Castro, he really messed up with Cuba. On the other hand, Cuba now has one of the highest literacy rates in Latin America. One goal of the Cuban Revolution was to politicize most aspects of daily life, including education and literature. Anyways, Batista certainly deserved to overthrown (I would have preferred him to be shot). It seems that with most Communist revolutions, the predecessors brought ruin upon themselves (GMD in China, Romanovs in Russia, Batista in Cuba, Somosa in Nicaragua).

[mrjesushat]

That's what's called a 'leading question'. Do many people on this forum have respect for historical kings, rulers, etc... you bet, but they probably wouldn't characterize that as 'reverence for brutal tyrants'...which is how their deeds would be interpreted in a modern context.

Yes, it's troubling that so many people continue to idolize the deranged.

And that's the danger of living in a nice safe place like America circa 2006 and criticizing people from several decades in the past who presided over much different conditions. Often the path to stability in deeply troubled and strife-riven nations requires a certain degree of brutality and ruthlessness.

I firmly believe that in order to make an omelet, it is sometimes necessary to break a few eggs. I would reject the assertion that in order to make an omelet, it is sometimes necessary to kill 3000 people.

They're at liberty to think what they want.

So, you're a Pinochet sympathizer, then? He was right to murder these people? I'm not clear on what you mean. I was pointing out that your statement made a horrible omission. I was hoping to appeal to your humanity, and remind you that stories like Pinochet's have victims.

There aren't monthly threads about them, or others like them. Why the silence? Milosevic got better treatment than Pinochet.

I'm not certain what this means. Milosevic did not escape justice. As to the monthly threads issue, I'd imagine it has something to do with people lacking any interest in the figures you mentioned. I'd point out that we don't see a lot of threads titled, "Castro is the best guy in the world" on a monthly basis, either.

Isn't that a convenient way to avoid having an opinion that can be critically examined? Castro is certainly responsible for as many deaths as Pinochet, and didn't exactly propel his country into the future, so why is the historical jury out on him? Hell, he didn't step down, or re-institute democracy either.

Uh, not really. It's actually an honest examination of a figure who will not be properly seen until decades after his death. We may even have to wait for the evaporation of the current geopolitical order before we can have access to honest and unbiased accounts of the Castro regime. Moreover, if the future is Communist, your statement will be absurd.

Context? I have no idea why you've written these two sentences.

Remember how we talked about tribalism? "Tribal Republicans", you said. In the context of "tribal" thinking, belief that one knows something in a world where information is controlled and adjusted by various gatekeepers is really reflective of faith in the order described by one's own "tribe". Whatever data we would seek to go on where polarizing figures are concerned is bound to be the fruit of a poisoned tree, to some extent or another.

Rather than simply calling it irrational or biased, why don't you provide facts to disprove the statement?

Ok, let me quote you:

But then again, those people had many sympathizers on the left...

And then I'll just quote you again:

'Leftist' and 'rightist' are nebullous terms apart from their strong emotional significance.

So you see, even by your own reasoning, you were being unfair and seeking to use emotionally charged language to indict by implication any "liberal" as being a supporter of "Communist" dictatorships. This is not only pretty low, it's also intellectually irresponsible and mildly reprehensible.

It's a faint bit amusing that the accepted definition lumps social liberalism and economic illiberalism together, and social illiberalism and economic liberalism together; but, of course, that's not the whole story. A person becomes a 'leftist' or 'rightist' based solely on the critic's judgement of which is more important, social or economic freedoms. So, a person can be a 'leftist' who is economically and socially illiberal if the critic sympathizes more with the economic sphere; or, a person who is both socially and economically liberal can be a 'leftist' if the critic sympathizes more with the social sphere. There are, of course, other permutations.

Well the professionals see it neither the way you have put it, nor the way you seem to take issue with. We're really dealing with a circular spectrum, and I would argue that it's a spherical spectrum. But I try to keep from posting long descriptions of my weird theories, which aren't even of that much interest to others in my profession. Mostly we worry about getting 10% out of every fundraiser. Political theory doesn't help chase down soft money contributions.

My view of the spectrum is that freedom, whether social or economic, belongs on one side, and that the absence of freedom, whether social or economic, belongs on the other. Following that definition, most dictators are much closer to the not free end than the free end, but may be confused, through our ambiguous contemporary political lexicon, as being light-years apart.

So you weren't even being true to your own views when you took that shot at liberals. For shame. With a mind like that, I could get you elected to office. Maybe even high office.

I won't respond to the last sentence, as it is simply inflammatory.

So you do have a sense of humor, after all.

[VALIS]

I know he supported Britain in the falklands war so he's alright by me.

RIP Augusto.

[Last Roman]

I know he supported Britain in the falklands war so he's alright by me.

RIP Augusto.

oh sure...he was a brutal dictator that killed thousands of his own people, but hey, he liked us, so I'm fine with him.