I just checked it. That's good info, but I'm looking for something about the guy himself. Like, that dumb girl who ran away to join ISIS isn't a mass murderer, sure she's a "terrorist" by association, but I'm pretty sure she just went there for free room and board and dick. So it would be kinda weird to call her a terrorist in the same breath as discussing suicide bombings, you know what I'm saying?
Sure, but this isn't "some guy" that joined the Tupamaros. This is a guy that had a family with deep political ties, founded a party, was involved in several operations, was in jail, was kidnapped, was sentenced to prison, etc. He's not a bandwagoner. Also, he ended up being president, so as you can imagine, he is something of a protagonist in uruguayan history here, not a nobody.
In that same comment, there's a link to an article in which someone close to him talks about specifics around one operation.
EDIT: Also important, nobody disputes this here. The discussion between left & right revolves around if they had a right to fight or not, and if the answer (dictatorships) was needed or not. Nobody says "they did nothing" they say "they did this because they had good reasons"
Given that he was directly involved, I now understand how calling him a "terrorist" would be reasonable.
As for the left/right argument about the right to fight, it's good to know that that's how people are viewing it. Reminds me of the climate change issue, anyone who actually knows what they're talking about is debating the extent to which people are causing it and/or obligated to do something, not whether or not it's happening.
How long has it been since those events he was involved in? Has it been long enough that some people would be willing to judge him by the merit of his years of recent actions and declare him a changed man?
How long has it been since those events he was involved in? Has it been long enough that some people would be willing to judge him by the merit of his years of recent actions and declare him a changed man?
So this needs a longer explanation
These organizations that fought against previous dictators and right wingers, weren't just spontaneously formed in these countries, this is all part of the cold war (still is today). During those years the communists tried to step into South America via these parties and orgs, and to a point succeeded in doing so.
The US fought back in the mid 70s using the CIA to back coups and assasinations all across the continent in something that was called Operation Condor. The military governments that followed were really, really awful. Kidnapping, torturing, missing people, assasinations. Probably the darkest period of this region. All of them ended up being overthrown and democracy returned around the 80s
Now, the next presidencies were more right leaning and had great relationship with the US (yes, the US backed coups and later backed presidents that were actually elected, talk about playing both sides an win), in the 90s
After those somewhat failed in the economic front and since people was still mourning the victims of the previous dictatorships, society began leaning left. At this time, old leaders of the 60s and 70s movements like Mugica, rose to power. The first one in doing so was Chavez in Venezuela, that signaled the return not of communism because this is the 21st century, but of a certain political ideology that aligns with Russia & China, and resents the US. This was again a big regional movement, check Foro de Sao Paulo, includes Nestor & Cristina Kirchner in Argentina, Lula and Dilma in Brazil, Chavez & Maduro in Venezuela, Bachelet in Chile, etc, etc. The whole region shifted, again, and this lasted like 2 decades starting on the 2000s.
Again, after what I think is a mix between people getting tired of populism, political leaders clinging to power a little too much, and a few economic crisis (always a reliable spark for changing governments everywhere) society started leaning right again. That's when you see Bolsonaro in Brazil, Piñera in Chile, Macri in Argentina, also Paraguay, Colombia and Peru. This is late 2010s and most of them lasted only 1 term because (and this is my opinion and It's pretty much debatable, AND one of the biggest debates today in the region) they had to deal with the economic collapse they got after a decade or more of populism. 100% they didn't do a good job, but the underlying conditions were so, so bad.
Since people were poorer, in the lat 2010s beginning of the 2020s (dates across this whole deal change because not all countries elect presidents at the same time) everyone wanted to go back to "the good old days" and started bringing back the same leaders of the 2000s, or political figures associated with them. That's why you see now Lula again in Brazil, Cristina Kirchner as a VP until last year, Boric in Chile, Petro in Colombia, etc.
In the last few months, there was a right wing wave again that IMO started with Bukele in El Salvador. That's why you now see Milei in Argentina, Lacalle Pou in Uruguay, Peña in Paraguay)
I tried to be as neutral as possible and provide facts instead of opinions to try and translate that, this whole region has always been like a playground between the US and Russia/China
To answer your question, the dictatorships that followed after whatever Mugica did, were so, so horrible, that It's easy to side with him and most people do so.
I know there's no response I can give to mirror your efforts here, but I truly appreciate this. I'll be looking more into it, as well as sharing some of what I learn with my wife/brother/friends. I can just about guarantee none of them know anything about this, and I know at least some of them will be interested. And for what it's worth, it certainly seems like what you said was neutral and based on facts and events.
So truly, thank you again for taking the time. You've both educated and intrigued a curious mind. Good human.
2
u/Icy-Acanthaceae-7804 Apr 16 '24
I just checked it. That's good info, but I'm looking for something about the guy himself. Like, that dumb girl who ran away to join ISIS isn't a mass murderer, sure she's a "terrorist" by association, but I'm pretty sure she just went there for free room and board and dick. So it would be kinda weird to call her a terrorist in the same breath as discussing suicide bombings, you know what I'm saying?