NationStates Jolt Archive

What does 9/11 have to do with the Brazilian revolution, answer me that?

Illegal and killed people by the thousands? Ugh, it's sad that an American has to teach you your history about the Revolução, but I guess it must be so:

1- Both are as illegal and illegitimate as each other. No more and no less. Both are also as legal and legitimate as each other. No more and no less. You can't argue with a straight face that the people in the two towers "deserved it" without arguing the same about the people tortured to death here. And vice-versa, you can't argue that the people tortured to death here "needed" to be tortured without arguing the same about the 9/11 victims. Their lives have the same value. No more, and no less.

2- The "Golpe de 64" - not a "Revolution", a "Coup" - lasted more than one night. More precisely, it lasted 20 years. With people being murdered, disappeared and tortured. So, yes, by the thousands is a good ballpark.

I think a couple hundred years from now 9/11 will be viewed as a revolution as well. Granted it's not a revolution by the people, but a revolution by the government from staying out of the people's lives to being majorly invasive for the sake of "security" and "protection".

Just my $.02.

There's no point in venting your spleen on TAI...he will just post some sources he claims backs up his point...someone will come along and destroy his sources because he doesn't actually bother to read them, and then he'll disappear from the thread. A month from now, he'll claim he 'won'. Your time would be better spent watching Brazilian porn...not the nasty stuff we'll pretend doesn't exist, but rather the great stuff with the mulatas with big round asses. Ooooh Brazil...

There's no point in venting your spleen on TAI...he will just post some sources he claims backs up his point...someone will come along and destroy his sources because he doesn't actually bother to read them, and then he'll disappear from the thread. A month from now, he'll claim he 'won'. Your time would be better spent watching Brazilian porn...not the nasty stuff we'll pretend doesn't exist, but rather the great stuff with the mulatas with big round asses. Ooooh Brazil...

1- It's my duty to see to it that his horrid delusions remain on the fringe, in Brazil and abroad.

2- I like Asians. :p

1- It's my duty to see to it that his horrid delusions remain on the fringe, in Brazil and abroad.

Buena suerte, nene.

Verás, aunque yo no tengo nada en contra de TAI, siempre me ha parecido algo cómico que el chico hable con tanta autoridad de régimens y situaciones políticas de las que no tiene mínimo de experiencia. Y claro, es risible incluso ver cómo, haciendo referencia a lo que Neesika mencionó, al cabo de un mes o más, regrese y se atribuya triunfos que no le corresponden.

Es todavía más risible que tenga tanta roña contigo. Eso sí que no lo entiendo. :D

Es todavía más risible que tenga tanta roña contigo. Eso sí que no lo entiendo. :D

No me culpes, ya dije a él que no lo amo. :p

No me culpes, ya dije a él que no lo amo. :p

Vamos vamos, que no te culpo, amigo. Si te quiero mucho. :D

Si te quiero mucho. :D

If you I want much?

If you I want much?

"I like you a lot".

"I like you a lot".

I thought quiero meant I want?

I thought quiero meant I want?

It also means "like". :p

It also means "like". :p

Damn Spanish, with it's double meanings.

2- I like Asians. :p

Same here.

Also, still waiting for a good explanation on why Brazil "needed" the coup.

From the other thread:

LBJ helped impose a military dictatorship on H2's country, so war or not, he would still understandably detest LBJ.
You give LBJ too much credit. The Brazilian Revolução de 1964 was a home-grown, domestic issue. Just because America supported the side that won doesn't mean America caused the revolution or helped imposed it on Brazil. It's a common smoke-shield tactic to blame the Americans or the CIA while ignoring the domestic, local causes.

Look, no mention of America when discussing the causes. Looks quite internal and domestic to me:

José Guilherme Merquior, a Brazilian diplomat and sociologist, defined the causes of the 1964 coup as "governmental instability,
disintegration of the party system, virtual paralysis of the legislative branch, erroneous attitudes by president Goulart (if not none at all) towards presidential succession; the threat represented by a poorly-planned agrarian reform; military restlessness towards government tolerance to insubordination; and a growing radicalism, by both left and right wings (...) all compounded by high inflation and, naturally, the frightening phantom of the Cuban Revolution.[29]

According to Celso Castro of the Fundação Getúlio Vargas, the perception of a communist threat in Brazil became increasingly tangible until it reached its climax with the 1935 Revolt. He cites events contributing to a growing anti-communism in the armed forces, such as: the Russian Revolution of 1917, the foundation of a communist party in Brazil (1922), the conversion to communism of "tenentista" leader Luís Carlos Prestes (1930), and his departure to the Soviet Union; the appearance (March of 1935) of the Aliança Nacional Libertadora, dominated by communists, the sergeants' revolt (1963), the sailors' revolt, Jânio Quadros giving a medal to Che Guevara, Goulart's trip to China, and the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union by Quadros. These were perceived by the military as being threats to the status quo. [30] Castro further argues that the 1964 coup was supported by some important sectors of society: two conservative parties (PSD and UDN), the business elite, large land owners, the media and the Catholic Church, as well as the governors of important states such as Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and São Paulo.[31]

So you would support the 9/11 attacks if the terrorists were domestic? :confused:
What does 9/11 have to do with the Brazilian revolution, answer me that?
Both were illegal, both killed people by the thousands.
Illegal and killed people by the thousands? Ugh, it's sad that an American has to teach you your history about the Revolução, but I guess it must be so:

Altogether seven people would die during the events of April 1. Casualties included two students who were shot amidst a demonstration against the troops encircling the Governor's palace in Recife, three in Rio and two in Minas Gerais.[22]

On April 11, 1964, General Humberto de Alencar Castello Branco was elected as president by the national congress.

Castro further argues that the 1964 coup was supported by some important sectors of society: two conservative parties (PSD and UDN), the business elite, large land owners, the media and the Catholic Church, as well as the governors of important states such as Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and São Paulo.

You do know the military held power for over twenty years, not just on April 1, right?

You do know the military held power for over twenty years, not just on April 1, right?
Sure, but I was talking about the revolution itself. The idea that the [then] current government had to be replaced by something else.

Sure, but I was talking about the revolution itself. The idea that the [then] current government had to be replaced by something else.

Why, in your opinion, did it have to be replaced?

José Guilherme Merquior, a Brazilian diplomat and sociologist, defined the causes of the 1964 coup as "governmental instability,
disintegration of the party system, virtual paralysis of the legislative branch, erroneous attitudes by president Goulart (if not none at all) towards presidential succession; the threat represented by a poorly-planned agrarian reform; military restlessness towards government tolerance to insubordination; and a growing radicalism, by both left and right wings (...) all compounded by high inflation and, naturally, the frightening phantom of the Cuban Revolution.[29]

Now let us look at the political interests of the aforementioned José Guilherme Merquior

Well his on line biography says:
Como diplomata exerceu suas funções, a partir de sua nomeação para o cargo de terceiro secretário (7 de novembro de 1963), nos seguintes locais: Ministério das Relações Exteriores; Divisão de Cooperação Intelectual; Oficial de Gabinete do Ministro de Estado; Secretário da Delegação brasileira à II Conferência Interamericana Extraordinária; Terceiro Secretário na Embaixada do Brasil em Paris, 1966, e Segundo Secretário no ano seguinte; Primeiro Secretário em Bonn (1973); Primeiro Secretário em Londres (1975/1979); Conselheiro, em Montevidéu (1980/1981); Ministro de segunda classe em Montevidéu (1982) e Ministro-conselheiro na Embaxada do Brasil em Londres (1983). source (http://www.biblio.com.br/defaultz.asp?link=http://www.biblio.com.br/conteudo/biografias/joseguilhermemerquior.htm)

Which will mean something to H2 but I guess I'll have translate for the rest here:
As a diplomat he carried out his functions, starting with his appointment to the post of third secretary (7/11/63) in the following places: Foreign Office, The Intelectual Cooperation Department, The state secretary's Office, as Secretary to the Brazilian delegation to the First Extraordinary InterAmerican Conference, Third secretary in the Brazilian consulate in Paris in 1966, second secretary there a year later; First Secretary in Bonn (1973); First Secretary in London (1975/1979) Adviser in Montevideo (Uruguay 1980/1981) Second Minister in Montivideo (1982) and Minister-Consul in London (1983)

So his job and livelhood obviously depended on the spin he put upon what was a very unjustifiable military coup. "and, naturally, the frightening phantom of the Cuban Revolution" should be enough to make that clear.

Shall we forget about Zé "Party Line" Merquior as a possible source of neutral information about the 64 coup in Brazil.

Notice his career ends in 1983. Ask yourself this - when was democracy restored in Brazil?

It also means "like". :p

Yup, and I like Heiko-kun. He's a cool cat and I consider him one of my NSG buddies.

Brazil? Oh right, that soccer country.

Yup, and I like Heiko-kun. He's a cool cat and I consider him one of my NSG buddies.

What about me? :(

What about me? :(

Well, you want me to consider you a buddy too? But I hardly interact with you, Led-sama.

Well, you want me to consider you a buddy too? But I hardly interact with you, Led-sama.

Then let's interact more. :p

Then let's interact more. :p

Vale pues. :wink:

Now let us look at the political interests of the aforementioned José Guilherme Merquior

Well his on line biography says:


Which will mean something to H2 but I guess I'll have translate for the rest here:
As a diplomat he carried out his functions, starting with his appointment to the post of third secretary (7/11/63) in the following places: Foreign Office, The Intelectual Cooperation Department, The state secretary's Office, as Secretary to the Brazilian delegation to the First Extraordinary InterAmerican Conference, Third secretary in the Brazilian consulate in Paris in 1966, second secretary there a year later; First Secretary in Bonn (1973); First Secretary in London (1975/1979) Adviser in Montevideo (Uruguay 1980/1981) Second Minister in Montivideo (1982) and Minister-Consul in London (1983)

So his job and livelhood obviously depended on the spin he put upon what was a very unjustifiable military coup. "and, naturally, the frightening phantom of the Cuban Revolution" should be enough to make that clear.

Shall we forget about Zé "Party Line" Merquior as a possible source of neutral information about the 64 coup in Brazil.

Notice his career ends in 1983. Ask yourself this - when was democracy restored in Brazil?

Ótima tradução, AB! Excelente! E digo isto como tradutor. :)

Great translation, AB! Excellent! And I say this as a translator. :)

Vale pues. :wink:

What does that mean?

Brazil? Oh right, that soccer country.

I like your avatar. :D

What does that mean?

That means "Ok".

That means "Ok".

Yay! :)

Sure, but I was talking about the revolution itself. The idea that the [then] current government had to be replaced by something else.

Which proceeded to kill, torture, exile and disappear more than the 3,000 people in WTC.

It didn't "have" to be replaced, and, again, it was a coup, not a revolution.

If Goulart did need to be replaced, the ones doing the replacing should have been the Brazilian electorate.

I like your avatar. :D

Everyone likes my avatar. Nothing beats a Cat that's also a General.

Whats wrong with Brazil also having had a violent attack? Terrorist Attacks, Violent, Illegal...Coup, Violent, Illegal...Whats the problem here?

I didnt realize the USofA wanted a Monopoly on that market as well...

If Terrorists did that shit to Brazil, id expect that we would offer our Aid in anyway required, and if we didnt, I would be quite :mad:

Whats wrong with Brazil also having had a violent attack? Terrorist Attacks, Violent, Illegal...Coup, Violent, Illegal...Whats the problem here?

I didnt realize the USofA wanted a Monopoly on that market as well...

If Terrorists did that shit to Brazil, id expect that we would offer our Aid in anyway required, and if we didnt, I would be quite :mad:

The event that is being discussed was not a terrorist attack, it was a military coup that overthrew a democratically elected government and led to 20 years of abuse of power by the military. With students, journalists, intellectuals and union representatives being 'disappeared', tortured, as happened to my father in law (union), arrested etc.

This can not, and should not, be compared to a one off act of outrage. They are different in their nature and different in the long term effects they have on the people.

Having lived in London in the 1970s, throughout the IRA terror campaign there, and now living in Brazil where I can see the effects that the dictatorship has had on society here, I can affirm, from personal experience, that both types of events are traumatic and damaging to the society, but are completely different in their effects.