I’ve already proved you defended a murderous tyrant, and that you lied about it.

You’re done, and you know it. All you have left is bluster, you pitiful idiot.

But, you know, keep pretending you have a case and I might just rub your nose in it. Go on: give me an incentive. You know it’ll be fun for both of us.

Oh, how about arguments.

“Being the half-arsed partisan you are, you didn’t bother to get a more modern, INFORMED, take on Pinochet, did you?”

A couple of books is a fair sum for a place like that.

Being a 1/2 arsed leftist partisan hack yourself I guess you simply relied on Quiggin’s “analysis. You know that’s bound to bring all sorts of riches on the race track.

“What about the history of abductions, torture and murder?”

Ok references please with proper historical annotations. ASAP. There needs to be proper doumented proof that can easily be accessed. No lying or distortions this time. No piddly articles written by partisan hacks. Page numbers too.

“I didn’t see any of that in your feeble attempt at evidence, girlyman.”

No you didn’t mary boy because you didn’t look and as usual you end up shooting at your feet like you did on the gold thread, Fred.

1.There was the Economist piece going back to 1973.

2.There was the history of the Supreme Court actions and findings at the time.

3 There was the history the lower house findinds and demands placed on the armed forces.

4. there was a brief explanation of why this should be defined as a civil war

5 There was the analogous examples of three other civile wars with this one having far less casualties.

6. A citation to the Alywn inquiry citing the number dead was actually 2,000 instead of 3,000.

Yep nothing to find there for an ignorant, biased half wit like yourself, begger boy.

Now refute the arguments in 25 or get on your scooter, scooter

No constitutional crisis justified the brutal dictatorship that followed. The fact that you don’t get that proves what a clueless hypocrite you are, munnkey.

You show no understanding of the history of the time. No understanding of the legal movements between the Supreme Court, the lower house and the demands placed on the forces by their oath to protect the integrity of the Chilean constitution. I guess with countless lies and distortions you portray, the word “integrity” would never come near your lexicon.

Look dickhead, if you have a point to make that the history I cited is inaccurate, wrong or that I am lying, show exactly where in comment 25 that is the case. Otherwise your girly dummy spit adds nothing to the discussion.

Show where the history is wrong or take a hike.

As for Quiggin’s comments”

Where did i say i supported Pinochet, Fyodor? Show the goods, otherwise retract it because your lying again.

Where? You mean apart from that last serve of tripe? Yet again, when presented with the option of quitting while he’s behind, munnkey decides to dig into an untenable position. Where did you say you supported Pinochet? Let me count the ways:

“You guys seem to get pretty worked up over the general. As far as killing goes, 3,000 isn’t a huge number by leftist standards if we were going to do some comparison shopping.”

It is correct to say that Allende was the elected president of Chile in the 1970 election albeit with just around 36% of the vote. However his government lost its democratic flavor by continually violating the constitution.

This is what the Economist said at the time:

The death of democracy in Chile is regrettable, however the blame lies with Dr. Allende and those followers who continually overrode the constitution”

http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2208

“As I said, read Quiggin’s post, which criticises BOTH tyrants”

I read both. Yesterdays and todays. The dickhead (kens term, not mine) thought he could get away with slagging on Pinochet alone. Then someone called him up on it in the thread. He must have had a “think” about the state to the world and woke up to cover his tracks with todays thread. Is there direct evidence? No. Is my hunch right? Yep.

“That is the approach anybody who gives a damn about democracy, liberty and justice should take”

You said this because you’re just sucking up to Ken here seeing you once ratted on his blog over at Catallaxy. You are so shamelessly transparent, Fyodor that it almost funny.

“Your hypocritical defence of Pinochet simply because he was from your side of politics is stupidly and characteristically partisan.”

Ah no. I never said anything like that. That’s simple projection that leftoids use to promote their own side at the expense of the other. Hard leftism killed in industrial size last century and the leftists present remorse over 3,000 people killed??? My point is if Pinochet was a leftist he would have been hero worshiped like some do Castro. See my point above about the Spanish government.

“Whatever bauble the Spanish government may have given Castro has no bearing whatsoever on the disgusting crimes of Pinochet.”

Crimes are crimes. Actions of people are also important. It is important to know that the Spanish Leftist government has presented a bauble, as you called it, to a mass murderer. He not only gets a pass. He gets dinner with the social set.

I’m not defending a butcher.

Yes, you are.

By default why are you defending a Castro wannabe? Allende shot himself with an AK47, which was Castro’s gift during his extended stay in Chile.

There’s no default position required here, munnkey. As I said, read Quiggin’s post, which criticises BOTH tyrants. That is the approach anybody who gives a damn about democracy, liberty and justice should take. Your hypocritical defence of Pinochet simply because he was from your side of politics is stupidly and characteristically partisan.

The comment is not irrelevant because you say it is. It’s very relevant because of the unbalanced views we get when we go into the comparison game with leftists like you.

No, it’s irrelevant because it’s irrelevant. Whatever bauble the Spanish government may have given Castro has no bearing whatsoever on the disgusting crimes of Pinochet. The only clown playing the comparison game here is you.

By default why are you defending a Castro wannabe? Allende shot himself with an AK47, which was Castro’s gift during his extended stay in Chile.

The comment is not irrelevant because you say it is. It’s very relevant because of the unbalanced views we get when we go into the comparison game with leftists like you.

It’s not murder trial. It’s a debate about history and what if’s. There’s a difference although I know it’s a little hard getting your head around that.

1. A Spanish court issues an arrest warrant for Pinochet for his crimes.

2. The Spanish Government has given Castro a medal and hononary citizenship status that is offered to exhalted foreigners.

You wish or anyone else wish to comment on this?

Comment: irrelevant.

Question: why are you (illogically) defending a butcher?

Analogously equivalent, not logically.

It’s not murder trial. It’s a debate about history and what if’s. There’s a difference although I know it’s a little hard getting your head around that.

1. A Spanish court issues an arrest warrant for Pinochet for his crimes.

2. The Spanish Government has given Castro a medal and hononary citizenship status that is offered to exhalted foreigners.

You wish or anyone else wish to comment on this?

“Fyodor, JC’s comment about what Allende would have done seems to be logically equivalent to a statement about the number of people that Gough Whitlam would have killed if Kerr hadn’t sacked him in 1975.”

I don’t know why you’re offering Fyodor an intro here? Maybe you’re too much a of simple couward to argue your own points. Whitlam and his sacking has nothing to do with the discussion here, dopey. He did the right thing and left office after he singlehandedly almost destroyed the place.

“As for comparisons with Castro (or Stalin or Mao for that matter), what jury in its right mind would acquit a murderer on the basis of a defence argument that s/he should be acquitted because, y’know, Ivan Milat killed more people?”

See the comment above about it being a debate and not a murder trial. You don’t even know what I think should have happened to Pinochet.

Why do leftists like you hide the sins of your co-religionists.

Talk about retro primitives (Ken’s comment), Norton.

As for comparisons with Castro (or Stalin or Mao for that matter), what jury in its right mind would acquit a murderer on the basis of a defence argument that s/he should be acquitted because, y’know, Ivan Milat killed more people?

Read Quiggin’s post.

Attempt to understand it.

Then – and ONLY then – attempt a meaningful comment.

My point as that the left gets all greased up going into some orgazmic state over Pinochet killing 3000 people but remains quiet on the industrial sized carnage the leftist experiment produced over the last century.

Quiggin’s reasoning is contorted as usual because he never thinks straight when it comes to AGW or left/right issues.It’s obvious he only wrote the Castro rejoinder after he gave it some thought overnight.

My point has been quite simple. Allende would have produced far more deaths than the number that came out of Pinochet’s regime. That’s my call… my estimate.

Castro has produced a hovel and killed far more people, but he seems to get a pass.

In any event you ought to do the right thing and apologise to Soon for misrepresenting his comments. You are far too articulate to have misconstrued his comments and therefore I can only come to the conclusion it is jsut a malicious attempt to slander him. Pathetic!

Be a man and take it back or are you just going to wuss out of an apology?

Viewed objectively, though, the similarities between the two [Castro and Pinochet] outweigh the differences. Any good they have done (education in Cuba, economic growth in Chile) is less substantial than claimed by their admirers, and in any case outweighed by the central fact that, to impose the policies they thought were good, they were willing to jail, torture and kill those who got in their way. And Pinochet’s gross personal corruption is matched by Fidel’s conversion of his dictatorship into a family business, to be inherited by his brother.

Would the real libertarians please stand up, please stand up?