679
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 271:
Line 271: + + + + + +
→Unprotected
::'''Problem 2''': For the same reason, the Report says "CIA actively supported the military Junta '''''after''''' the overthrow of Allende but '''''did not assist''''' Pinochet to assume the Presidency'', you must separate the claims made in this statement, ''"Many in the US '''''vigorously protested both the CIA's alleged involvement''''' ... and the appalling human rights violations ...including ....thousands ....'''''taken into custody by Pinochet's forces'''''.
::'''Problem 2''': For the same reason, the Report says "CIA actively supported the military Junta '''''after''''' the overthrow of Allende but '''''did not assist''''' Pinochet to assume the Presidency'', you must separate the claims made in this statement, ''"Many in the US '''''vigorously protested both the CIA's alleged involvement''''' ... and the appalling human rights violations ...including ....thousands ....'''''taken into custody by Pinochet's forces'''''.
::These statements are directly contradictory. I would suggest removing Pinochet's name from both references, or constructing a better timeline, or making a more specific identification as to who "Many in the US" is, or a combination of all three. But what exists now simply is not acceptable. In the meantime, I will do a reversion and leave the page unlocked so you can work on it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:41, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::These statements are directly contradictory. I would suggest removing Pinochet's name from both references, or constructing a better timeline, or making a more specific identification as to who "Many in the US" is, or a combination of all three. But what exists now simply is not acceptable. In the meantime, I will do a reversion and leave the page unlocked so you can work on it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:41, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::You're straining at gnats, Rob. Nowhere either in my wording or the wording of the Rettig Committee is the claim made that Pinochet "took part in the planning or took part in the execution of the coup." The statement that is made is quite simple and factual. On the very day of the coup, Pinochet was installed as the leader of the Junta. Whether or not Pinochet took actually engineered the coup, or took part in it, his presence as the leader of the Junta on SEPTEMBER 11 is a matter of history, and a matter of fact, and anyone who takes the trouble of actually reading contemporary accounts of the coup in newspapers or magazines can easily determine this. Removing Pinochet's name from this article is absolutely senseless -- unless you plan to remove any reference to HOW he ended up leading Chile from the article on Pinochet.
:::Equally factual is the statement that the CIA was alleged to have participated in the coup. "Allege" you see, means "to assert without proof or before proving." (Merriam Webster's Ninth New Collegiate dictionary) The allegation, true or not, was made from the first day of the coup on. Like the point at which Pinochet took over the helm of Chile, the fact that this allegation was voiced is a matter of historical record. There is nothing at all contradictory about saying "it was alleged that the CIA had assisted in the the coup" and observing later that the allegation was untrue.
:::But of course, you know that. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 21:47, 15 April 2007 (EDT)