Is it wrong to criticize Pinochet?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Wow, looks like he's dead, end debate now

Translation:

I know the US committed a horrible crime which led to death of thousands and betrayed all the principles which the United States was designed to uphold (mainly for copper greed), yet believing that a US republican goverment committed a wrong and immoral action clearly makes you a communist, and so I will avoid this issue like the plague.

I have no idea as I really know nothing about this dude

[Dr. Cynic]

Criticize him all you wish.

[Hatman 🍁]

Perhaps the better question is, is it wrong to support Pinochet? I'd say from a moralistic stand point it is, although one is certainly within the bounds of freedom of speech towards doing so.

No, I don't know how Chavez got into this. Chavez was democratically elected, and while he's no saint, I sincerely doubt he will ever have anyone killed for their beliefs like Pinochet. I agree that Pinochet and Castro are good comparisons from the centrist political view point, as they both have done good things for their countries in the eyes of their respective political ideologies, but have also done terrible things.

[Gustaf]

I think with Pinochet and Chavez, i'd say Chavez is still better because his time in office is still not over.

this discussion will be more fruitful once Chavez is out of office.

And no i dont think its wrong to criticize Pinochet, the guy was a murderous thug.

Chavez doesn't kill people.

Lol, he hasn't been forced to yet.

Forced to? Oh right, so it wasn't Pinochet's or his regime's fault that people were killed, they were forced to. They couldn't help it. Seriously, Gustaf, do you realise that you appear to be defending Pinochet here and in this other thread? You just seem a rather passionate about this.

Oh, and Chavez could kill people just as I could decide to start a sheep farm tomorrow. Just because there is a possibility of something happening doesn't mean it will necessarily occur.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His regime continued to abduct and torture "political dissidents" throughout his Presidency. Ask the very President of Chile, whose father, a member of the armed forces, nay, a General who resisted Pinochet, suffered a heart attack whilst in "detention" in 1975.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Moreso than Pinochet, though. Heck, why are we still having this comparison?

Even human trash deserve to be judged fairly. They won't look good when judged fairly so there is no reason not to do so.

Pinochet was forced to kill people in the sense that if he hadn't he wouldn't have reached power. That doesn't take away his moral responsibility for those atrocities, it's just a statement of fact. Kind of like a robber isn't much different from a murderer, because the robber is prepared to kill someone if he has to. Chavez so far have not had any reason to use force. If he ends up that way, and I suspect he will at some point, we'll see what happens.

I've seen Chavez speaking, I have read about his actions, etc. I'm convinced that the man has no morality whatsoever and would gladly kill and torture people if he felt the need to.

Killing 3000 people over the course of 15 years isn't extraordinary. It's tragic, brutal, immoral, despicable, etc. But it doesn't mark you out as a particularly blood-stained dictator. Pretty much every third world ruler in history has managed at least that.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

no