Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,721
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 333:
Line 333: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Unprotected: discussion moved from User talk
According to the Rettig Report, the idea of a rotating junta was just that -- an idea -- and one that was dropped after a few weeks. It was never really implemented, and the man who had been sworn in as leader from the beginning, Augusto Pinochet, remained in charge. And there is no sign of any "obvious confusion" about who was calling the shots beyond your unfounded extrapolations in either historical or contemporary accounts. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
According to the Rettig Report, the idea of a rotating junta was just that -- an idea -- and one that was dropped after a few weeks. It was never really implemented, and the man who had been sworn in as leader from the beginning, Augusto Pinochet, remained in charge. And there is no sign of any "obvious confusion" about who was calling the shots beyond your unfounded extrapolations in either historical or contemporary accounts. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
==Unique==
This is probably the only site in the world other than a few fringe spanish language sites that actually defends Pinochet.[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::It is almost certainly about the only one that claims there's some question about who was in charge immediately after the coup. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Not at all. The CIA review ordered by the Clinton Administration published in 2000 says exactly that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::::And yet so far you've offered no cites to support this claim. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Duh, what does the English language phrase, cited above, "CIA review ordered by the Clinton Administration published in 2000" mean? Duh, do I have to link spam the cite? Here: [https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/index.html CIA Activities in Chile], September 18, 2000. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:47, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
*Go easy, Rob. Perhaps their online activities precluded them watching the news back then, or even doing a 20 second Google now. Don't you yet understand you are here as a Sysop to satisfy their demands? :p And goodness, yesterday the Doctor couldn't find anything else to interest him outside of medicine. Today he has become a student of history and politics! I'd say Conservapedia has been a positive force for many! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 07:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::LOL! Rob, your CIA quote is about as convincing a cite for Pinochet not being in charge as your Speer quote was for your bizarre claim that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939.
:::TK, I watched the news back then and remember quite clearly that from the beginning, Pinochet was named as the man in charge. Not only a Google search, but a visit to a library confirms this. (Someone who thinks the average person could waste time "online" in 1973 may find this hard to grasp, but a traditional library is this big building filled with the fascinating things called "books" and bound periodicals, some of them actually written BEFORE 1990! You do research there by using an online or offline card catalogue, finding the books or bound periodicals on the shelves, and opening them, and consulting their index. The writing in these "books" and "magazines" can't be edited or seamlessly altered once they're published, which I'm sure would be frustrating to you and RobS, but is a rather nice feature for those of us who are actually interested in what was being said at the time historical events were unfolding.) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:PF, you have found some excellent primary sources; problem is (a) the sources say something completely different from what you cite them as saying; (b) you cite them as as saying things they do not say. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)