I am against communism. However, I simply believe that Pinochet- or whichever anti-communist leader that could have removed Allende- should not have used the tactics that Pinochet used. Furthermore, I do not believe what Pinochet did is equivalent to fighting lawless fanatic jihadis in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I am in total agreement with you!
Let me ask you this, which -assuming that you consider either to be wrong- was worse: Pinochet detaining and killing some 2,000 people in an internal war to stop communist incursion; or the United States using the atomic bomb to incinerate over 100,000 people in a city virtually devoid of any targets of military necessity in order to stop the imperial japenese?
My point in asking the question is this; while both abovementioned incidents led to a net positive, both incidents are tragic in that death to innocents occurred, many more in the case of the atomic bomb. You criticize Pinochet for his methods and tactics. Are you as critical in your treatment of those who dropped and made the decision to drop the a-bomb? If not, why?
Most people will point to the context, situation, and the sheer amount of deaths that were prevented to justify our atomic actions in WWII, and count me as one of them, by the way. You however, seem only to want to look and judge Pinochet by the some of the more distasteful tactics he employed? Is that fair, is that intellectually honest when juxtaposed with some of your other assessments of history?
What I am getting at, is that tactics aren't the ONLY thing to be considered in evaluating Pinochet’s contribution (and I use that word intentionally) to history.
My 2 cents.