If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I can acknowledge that Pinochet was a dictator. (Galloway interestingly doesn't think Castro is a dictator).
I support democracy and I condemn all dictatorships; whether they're Communist or military.
I do not deny that some awful things happened while Pinochet was in charge. But, I think many of those on the left who have demonised Pinochet so fervently have done so to feel a bit better about certain figures on the left. I think a bit over 2,000 are estimated to have been killed by government/military/police forces during Pinochet's rule. And of course it seems very unlikely that Pinochet ordered every single death; power isn't that centralised and most of the murders in Chile were not on a systematic basis. But, I'm not for a moment going to deny that Pinochet was responsible for killing people, mainly because of their political views.
But when thinking that in Russia, the Red Terror which began after the assassination attempt on Lenin, 140,000 were murdered – these, direct executions by the Cheka the idea that Pinochet is the worst dictator to have ever lived seems a bit hard to swallow.
If I said Pinochet's regime is defensible, I stand by that for Chile is a prosperous and stable democracy today, and I empathise with those in Chile who agree that it would not be had communism infected Chile. Indeed, considering what happened in Cuba and the experiences of Cuban-Americans as well as the Soviet Union I think in spite of every wrongdoing that happened under Pinochet it was preferable to communism.
Disgusting.
That seems a misnomer to me.
I`d say a free market has got to to be free from interference from ANY outside party other than the two involved in the voluntary interaction in order to be called free.
He's dead then.
No doubt a certain someone will be along in a bit to eulogise how Pinochet was not such a bad egg after all.
Oooh, looks like I wasn't quick enough.
You really are becoming a parody dis.
Adios, cunt! :yippe:
*goes to open bottle for real*
burn in hell!!
How does a simple r.i.p equate to a eulogy?
I don't know why I even bother to reply to your posts, corresponding with a sab certainly isn't something to boast about. I really should put you on ignore.
You can't bring yourself to condemn him can you? You can't bring yourself to condemn a brutal torturer and murderer because he did it in the name of capitalism. I find that quite sick tbh.
Tbh if those who hate Pinochet so much and are now crassly toasting his death harboured similar feelings towards Lenin I might have some respect for them. But, the fact remains that whilst Pinochet was an unpleasant dictator communist leaders have committed infinitely greater evils. 140,000 died under Lenin, 2,000 under Pinochet yet plenty of those decrying Pinochet for human rights abuses have a soft spot for Lenin. How consistent. I've never condoned the abuses committed whilst Pinochet was in charge (although I will applaud his courageous support for Britain following the invasion of the Falklands) but had Chile succumbed to communism I maintain that ordinary Chileans would have endured far greater suffering - and importantly, Chile would not be the stable and prosperous democracy it is today.
Er, I have condemned him before. As a supporter of democracy I condemn Pinochet's methods and his route to power. The abuses that happened in Chile during his rule are deplorable crimes against the Chilean people. I'm glad that Chile has progressed so much since.
I do not believe I have. I have never denied or condoned the abuses that happened whilst Pinochet was in office.
is significantly different from your previous posts.
Elsewhere on this thread, prior to that post, I've called him an 'unpleasant dictator' and acknowledged that he's responsible for mass murder. And I stand by all of my posts on this thread including that recent one you consider significantly different. I don't see any contradiction in my views.
Sod Lenin, it's Stalin who was the real scummer.
Lenin was weak and was the unfortunate object of a personality cult.
Stalin on the other hand, was a fucking legend. Best ruler Russia had since Peter the Great.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Pinochet comes across as a bit of a beginner. There's a fair few on the list still to go, so don't drink all the champagne yet (I'm guessing its going to be Castro next, but Saddam could still suprise us all)
'Yes but Allende was less than perfect'. 'Yes but commie dictators are worse'. 'Yes but he brought prosperity to Chile'.
Completely irrelevant when discussing the hideous crimes of the now-rotting-in-hell monster. If you had managed to say 'yes he was an odious mass murdering tyrant' with no 'buts' even just once, your claims that you did not justify him or his actions because of his love of capitalism and a certain political creed might sound a little more credible.
Even now you felt compelled to simply post 'r.i.p.' Even if you really believed in showing respect for the dead despite their crimes (and I'd bet my house you won't be posting 'r.i.p.' when Saddam Hussein is executed or when Castro dies) you couldn't bring yourself together to say 'he was an evil brute', but a solitary 'r.i.p'.
Unless this was just a wind-up contribution it does indeed seem as if you're paying homage to the man. You certainly go out of your way to show him in a better light, and you only make statements regarding his appalling crimes when confronted or challenged.
I do hope this is a chance for my country to finally reconcile.