[Well, I believe that any kind of political killing is wrong, regardless of the person, be either Pinochet [...]
Why would there be anything morally wrong with assasinating Pinochet, a brutal dictator who only came to power through a coup d'état? The only regretable aspect of the attempt seems to have been its outcome, as far as I can see.
Would your condemnation of political killings ("any kind") extend to the July 20 plot (1944) as well?
I'm trying to make a point about the way both sides see those years, because they only justify themselves and they are unable to at least make a compromise (the right painting Allende as an extremist, for example, even if he was quite moderate). I suppose that if we start justifing certain deaths then all of them will be justified, and that would be a mistake.
Now, I understand that Pinochet was a traitor to the legitimate government, and that his ridiculous pride cost us 17 years of a dictatorial system. But do you think that killing him in 1986 would have made things better? As I discovered in the recent days, many Concertacion politicians derided Teiller and the extremists for giving the military a reason to crack down on them. Taking Pinochet out would have created widespread chaos, and even if his implied succesor wasn't particulary harsh (Admiral Jose Toribio Merino), the likely result would have been a worse repression during the final years and even more troubles to enter democracy. Taking the same analogy, it would be like killing Hitler and replacing him with Himmler or Reinhard Heydrich, and at the same time giving them yet another motive to create a bloodbath.
I don't think a succesfull assasination would have made things better, no. And with the benefit of hindsight, it is probably a very good thing that it failed. Still, it was an understandable act at the time, and I personally can't see anything morally wrong with it, considering the circumstances. I see that this is quite off-topic though, so sorry for derailing this thread further
.
Poll
