• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Che Guevara: Hero or thug?

The Real McCoy said:
I still have yet to see any serious case for Guevara.

He fought for what he believed in? Big deal. Lots of guys do (bin Laden, Hitler, et. al)

I wish I'd see just ONE person my age wearing a t-shirt favoring truly (IMHO) admirable revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Sam Adams.
You'd probably see one in a Sam Adams t-shirt; however, it would probably be an advertisement for the beer , not the American Patriot.:mrgreen:
 
FinnMacCool said:
This post proves just how eager you are to find 'insanity' in any kind of idealistic cause. Because that anarchist wrote a well written review of that book and yet you can find in that hints of insanity, I find very repulsive.
Who said anything about "insanity?" Have you been conversing with your therapist today? All I said was that if an anarchist found this book to be enlightening or influential, then it only reflects how twisted their views of political change are. Murdering thousands of unarmed innocents, mostly clergy, to fulfill your "revolutionary goals" is hardly an admirable feat (especially during the 20th century). This book simply provides eyewitness accounts of many of these atrocities. Like I said in an earlier post, get the book, actually read it, then come back and we'll discuss it further - I think you can get it for about $7 or $8 on Amazon or I'll GIVE you my copy if I can get an address to send it to. Perhaps it will help to open your eyes concerning why anarchy, collectivism and pure socialism WILL NOT WORK, at least not on a NATIONAL LEVEL.
 
alphamale said:
First of all, do have any clue of how puerile you appear with your che image and avatar? ;) Probably even most marxist academicians would laugh at you. What are you, a brainwashed college freshman? If you are anything BUT that it's reallllllllllly sad!

Do you know how ignorant you sound?:lol: Not only are you commenting on a subject in which you know nothing of except for what your neo-nazi friends tell you, but also you are calling me brainwashed which is hilarious considering you'll buy all the **** that comes out of Bushes mouth. He could start a war for no particular reason or hand over your security to a nation that has known contact with terrorists and you'd blindly follow him. If your anything but a white trash southerner or a white suburban male it'd be reallllllly sad!!!

[/QUOTE] "Though he is seen by many as a hero, opponents of Guevara, including Cuban exiles, think of him as a killer and terrorist. They point to what they see as the less savory aspects of Guevara's life, taking the viewpoint that he was enthusiastic about executing opponents of the Cuban Revolution. Some of Guevara's writing is cited as evidence of this tendency, as quoted in an article by Álvaro Vargas Llosa. For example, in his "Message to the Tricontinental", he writes of "hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine."[53][/QUOTE]

He was a guerilla, not a politician. He fought and killed people. THat's all there is to it. But he was never enthusiastic about doing so.

New York Sun writer Williams Myers labels Guevara a "sociopathic thug".[54] Other critics writing in the U.S. press have made similar remarks. They assert that Che Guevara was responsible for the torture and execution of hundreds of people in Cuban prisons, and the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces.[55]

These are his critics. They focus only on the violence that he was forced to use. Critics constantly over exagerate things and morph them into bullshit. He never tortured people, and never killed with out a reason. I doubt he killed peasants because they were on his side fighting against the evil US backed Batista dictatorship.


Finally, these critics believe that Guevara was a major failure at managing the Cuban economy, as he "oversaw the near-collapse of sugar production, the failure of industrialization, and the introduction of rationing—all this in what had been one of Latin America’s four most economically successful countries since before the Batista dictatorship.

I love this. People will support the Batista dictator ship which killed even more people just because it was capitalist. I love "the near collapse" which can be said about almost everything, Reagan saw the near collapse of the economy due to his large defiect increase. BTW Cuba was actually not successful at all. It was poor and oppressed.


In the end you can take cheap blows and talk **** about Che, speculate if you will etc.. but everyone in there right mind knows that it is completely over exagerated. Nothing can tarnish the image of Che because his goals were noble and just and you neo-nazis can't seem to accept that.
 
Uh, just one question "Che" - what did you have on your T-shirt last year (when you were 12) before you got your Che shirt - a Ninja Turtles shirt? A spider man shirt? BLAAAAAAAHH HAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA :mrgreen:
 
Che said:
Do you know how ignorant you sound?:lol: Not only are you commenting on a subject in which you know nothing of except for what your neo-nazi friends tell you, but also you are calling me brainwashed which is hilarious considering you'll buy all the **** that comes out of Bushes mouth. He could start a war for no particular reason or hand over your security to a nation that has known contact with terrorists and you'd blindly follow him. If your anything but a white trash southerner or a white suburban male it'd be reallllllly sad!!!

Umm Guevara helped Castro round people up into death camps and slaughter them wholesale, you sir are the nazi!

"Though he is seen by many as a hero, opponents of Guevara, including Cuban exiles, think of him as a killer and terrorist. They point to what they see as the less savory aspects of Guevara's life, taking the viewpoint that he was enthusiastic about executing opponents of the Cuban Revolution. Some of Guevara's writing is cited as evidence of this tendency, as quoted in an article by Álvaro Vargas Llosa. For example, in his "Message to the Tricontinental", he writes of "hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine."[53]

He was a guerilla, not a politician. He fought and killed people. THat's all there is to it. But he was never enthusiastic about doing so.



These are his critics. They focus only on the violence that he was forced to use. Critics constantly over exagerate things and morph them into bullshit. He never tortured people, and never killed with out a reason. I doubt he killed peasants because they were on his side fighting against the evil US backed Batista dictatorship.

Yes yes and the holocaust never happened either right? :roll:


I love this. People will support the Batista dictator ship which killed even more people just because it was capitalist. I love "the near collapse" which can be said about almost everything, Reagan saw the near collapse of the economy due to his large defiect increase. BTW Cuba was actually not successful at all. It was poor and oppressed.

Umm no it wasn't lier it was the most industrialized and prosperous country in all of Latin America.

In the end you can take cheap blows and talk **** about Che, speculate if you will etc.. but everyone in there right mind knows that it is completely over exagerated. Nothing can tarnish the image of Che because his goals were noble and just and you neo-nazis can't seem to accept that.

Now that's funny a Commie fascist supporter of tyrants accusing someone of being a neo-nazi.

Guevara is a murderer and a scumbag he has not done one worthwhile thing in his short pitiful life and I p!ss on his grave.
 
alphamale said:
Uh, just one question "Che" - what did you have on your T-shirt last year (when you were 12) before you got your Che shirt - a Ninja Turtles shirt? A spider man shirt? BLAAAAAAAHH HAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA :mrgreen:

????
:confused:

You take your pills today?
 
Che said:
????
:confused:

You take your pills today?

You got a Che poster in your bedroom? A Che T-shirt? :2razz: A Che coffee mug? :mrgreen: You think you look or sound cool with your Che crap? Notice any of the giggles behind your back? :rock
 
alphamale said:
You got a Che poster in your bedroom? A Che T-shirt? :2razz: A Che coffee mug? :mrgreen: You think you look or sound cool with your Che crap? Notice any of the giggles behind your back? :rock

Not really I don't have any of those except for a simple biography of the guy. I became became interested in the guy and decided his cause was just. I rarely speak of him except when I talk politics.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Umm Guevara helped Castro round people up into death camps and slaughter them wholesale, you sir are the nazi!

I share opposite ideals from nazis unlike you. I'm a leftist you are a rightist. Hitler was a rightist. Eisenhower rounded up traitors and signed papers to kill them yet you turn a blind eye on him.


Yes yes and the holocaust never happened either right? :roll:

Uhh it did and it has nothing top do with this. What Che did was nothing in comparison to the holocaust. Che was merely following orders the same way a soldier does when he kills the enemy. strangely you guys find no problem with that.


Umm no it wasn't lier it was the most industrialized and prosperous country in all of Latin America.

Not really. It was a poor US backed despotism.



Now that's funny a Commie fascist supporter of tyrants accusing someone of being a neo-nazi.

Supportor of tyrants? You obviously know nothing about me or the topic of which you speaking about. I believe in democracy and freedom of speech however I don't think we should kick the less fortunate to the curb. It is inhumain and nazi-like and since you and your bush groupies support it I call you nazis.

Guevara is a murderer and a scumbag he has not done one worthwhile thing in his short pitiful life and I p!ss on his grave.

You keep saying this. You sound retarded. I'm inclined to think you are. What's your point with this **** on his grave crap???
 
Whether Che was hero or thug is not the reason why he is so idolized. The simple truth is, teenagers are bloody stupid (i would know im 17, and dumb as hell to boot) and if it's cool to not care about the U.S. then hating it is the quickest way to sound smart without knowing jack, (which sadly works 80% of the time). Anyway, the quickest way to do this is act like your Che incarnate, like wearing a freakin t-shirt makes you a genius. I find it little coincidence that the same people who love and worship "The Che" also spend 20 hours a day watching t.v. smoking pot and eating cheetos. Was Che a hero, hell no, are the idiots sporting him on their shirts heros, well maybe if they got off their asses, they could stop getting their crap out through their mouth
 
Che said:
I share opposite ideals from nazis unlike you. I'm a leftist you are a rightist. Hitler was a rightist. Eisenhower rounded up traitors and signed papers to kill them yet you turn a blind eye on him.




Uhh it did and it has nothing top do with this. What Che did was nothing in comparison to the holocaust. Che was merely following orders the same way a soldier does when he kills the enemy. strangely you guys find no problem with that.




Not really. It was a poor US backed despotism.





Supportor of tyrants? You obviously know nothing about me or the topic of which you speaking about. I believe in democracy and freedom of speech however I don't think we should kick the less fortunate to the curb. It is inhumain and nazi-like and since you and your bush groupies support it I call you nazis.



You keep saying this. You sound retarded. I'm inclined to think you are. What's your point with this **** on his grave crap???

That's not what Guevara believed, you're waving the hammer and sickle for Christ's sake.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's not what Guevara believed, you're waving the hammer and sickle for Christ's sake.

I don't follow Guevara like you do Bush, however I agree with him on many things. I think it was wrong and inhumain to kill the traitors since they could have just been locked up. But did he have a choice? He couldn't take on Castro and Cuba for making him serve in this way. Che believed in communism with democracy and a government built around the people not on them. This is why Che left Cuba after he realized that accomplishing this wouldn't happen in Cuba. I wave the hammer and sickle because I think the goal is noble, the way many go about doing it is another story.
 
Re: CHe Guevara: Hero or thug?

Che said:
The gays and innocent is a myth


If this is the case then why was the poet Allen Ginsberg deported for protesting about the imprisioning of homsexuals in cuba? This is described in the wikipedia article on Ginsberg so if this is incorrect you should post some evidence against that claim on the disscussion page.
 
Guevara, was a typical third world communist, basically a punk with a gun. He was a blood-thirsty killer of defenseless captives, but was wasted himself by a third-rate army. The only reason 99% of people have ever heard of him is because of the famous photo taken of him.
 
alphamale said:
Guevara, was a typical third world communist, basically a punk with a gun. He was a blood-thirsty killer of defenseless captives, but was wasted himself by a third-rate army. The only reason 99% of people have ever heard of him is because of the famous photo taken of him.


I think the Bolivians agreed with your current assessment.
 
Che said:
I don't follow Guevara like you do Bush, however I agree with him on many things. I think it was wrong and inhumain to kill the traitors since they could have just been locked up. But did he have a choice? He couldn't take on Castro and Cuba for making him serve in this way. Che believed in communism with democracy and a government built around the people not on them. This is why Che left Cuba after he realized that accomplishing this wouldn't happen in Cuba. I wave the hammer and sickle because I think the goal is noble, the way many go about doing it is another story.

Che left Cuba not out of any noble rightousness but because he had become a threat to Casto's power and knew Castro would either have him killed or imprisoned. And to normal people the hammer and sickle is equivalent to someone waving the swastika. It stands for tyranny, oppression, and genocide.
 
alphamale said:
Guevara, was a typical third world communist, basically a punk with a gun. He was a blood-thirsty killer of defenseless captives, but was wasted himself by a third-rate army. The only reason 99% of people have ever heard of him is because of the famous photo taken of him.

No he wasn't. He was the symbol of fighting for what's righteous and just. He is not even a quarter of the blood-thirsty killer our president is. He was surrounded and brutally killed by a corrupt US backed government that did more brutal things to there people than you can even imagine yet you talk none of them. The reason he's famous is becasue he has become a symbol.

Che left Cuba not out of any noble rightousness but because he had become a threat to Casto's power and knew Castro would either have him killed or imprisoned. And to normal people the hammer and sickle is equivalent to someone waving the swastika. It stands for tyranny, oppression, and genocide.

Not true. You know little about Che and it shows here. The hammer and sickle doesn't stand for that but rather a classless, equal, unified system in which everyone is equal. It was merely stained by the corrupt regimes of the USSR and Cuba. It was meant to be a good thing, and can be and that's why I support it. I don't support how it has become so far. The reason why I support Che is because he fought fo this sort of pure democratic communism.
 
Che said:
The hammer and sickle doesn't stand for that but rather a classless, equal, unified system in which everyone is equal.
The "hammer and sickle", represented the unification of industry and agriculture, if I remember correctly.


Anyways, all this talk of "symbols" and things are sort of boring, nothing happens by symbols alone. Or even a slight bit.
 
Comrade Brian said:
The "hammer and sickle", represented the unification of industry and agriculture, if I remember correctly.


Anyways, all this talk of "symbols" and things are sort of boring, nothing happens by symbols alone. Or even a slight bit.

Right well the point is that if it represents tyranny, oppression, and genocide as it does in Trajan's eyes, I don't support it. While if it represents what you and I seem to think it odes than I do support it.
 
Che said:
Not true. You know little about Che and it shows here. The hammer and sickle doesn't stand for that but rather a classless, equal, unified system in which everyone is equal. It was merely stained by the corrupt regimes of the USSR and Cuba. It was meant to be a good thing, and can be and that's why I support it. I don't support how it has become so far. The reason why I support Che is because he fought fo this sort of pure democratic communism.

Don't forget China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea and.... hell, every modern nation that attempted this failed social experiment.
 
My best guess is that over 100 million died so some idiot despots could wave their hammer and sickle around without any form of political opponents in the last century alone, including at the hands of El Che.
 
Che said:
No he wasn't. He was the symbol of fighting for what's righteous and just. He is not even a quarter of the blood-thirsty killer our president is. He was surrounded and brutally killed by a corrupt US backed government that did more brutal things to there people than you can even imagine yet you talk none of them. The reason he's famous is becasue he has become a symbol.

He was one of the minions of what is by far, way way by far, the most bloodthirsty plague every let loose on human beings, the communist movement of the twentieth century, responsible for 100 million deaths, nearly infinite destruction and misery: from the bloody lawless murders in the Cabana prison, to the extinction of 1/4 of the population of Cambodia, to the tens of millions who died in the Chinese Great Leap Forward, to the tens of millions dead in the Soviet engineered Great Ukrainian Famine. It's almost unbearable to me that people can refer to "justice" and any communist who ever lived in the same breath, even if it is an uneducated sophomoric punk like you.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Yes yes and the swastika is just a symbol of goodwill.

Actually it sort of is. The swastika is a religious symbol of many cultures. It was also the Aryan symbol of life, if I remember correctly, and ironically the Nazi swastika is clockwise, Aryan is counter-clockwise, backwards. Also swastikas were supposed to bring good luck, "Allied" pilots in World War 1 painted swastikas on their planes like crazy.

to the tens of millions dead in the Soviet engineered Great Ukrainian Famine
Fabricated number, Ukraine didn't have such a large population to lose "tens of millions" and come through with the population so large. I have heard some people say 30-40 million died. Most historians agree the number of deaths was around 7-10 million. And if you would like something to "prove" I am not much of a liar:
http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/

Also I think what many of you don't understand, is that it is one thing to claim to be a "communist" or whatever, its another question to be one. Take Stalin for instance, he executed many of the Bolsheviks and Central Committee, he was the third to the last member of the original Central Comittee member to die, only two outlived him. Because about half died from executions and prison sentences imposed by him. Also he executed probably the three most influential members besides him(Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Bukharin, because they sided against him, and in 1940 had Trostky assasinated).
http://marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/cc-1917.jpg

Also Lenin demanded his removal in some of his last letters:
Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution. Comrade Trotsky, on the other hand, as his struggle against the C.C. on the question of the People's Commissariat of Communications has already proved, is distinguished not only by outstanding ability. He is personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C., but he has displayed excessive self-assurance and shown excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work.
Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.

Lenin

Taken down by L.F.
January 4, 1923
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/congress.htm
Top Secret
Personal
Copy to Comrades Kamenev and Zinoviev



Dear Comrade Stalin:

You have been so rude as to summon my wife to the telephone and use bad language. Although she had told you that she was prepared to forget this, the fact nevertheless became known through her to Zinoviev and Kamenev. I have no intention of forgetting so easily what has been done against me, and it goes without saying that what has been done against my wife I consider having been done against me as well. I ask you , therefore, to think it over whether you are prepared to withdraw what you have said and to make your apologies, or whether you prefer that relations between us should be broken off.[1]

Respectfully yours,

Lenin
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/mar/05.htm


Also for those of you who keep "equating" "communism" with such dictators, and genocide, shows really none of you have the slightest idea of anything.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Don't forget China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea and.... hell, every modern nation that attempted this failed social experiment.

Technically none of them did as they completely ignored marxs writings. Marxs goal was a society run by workers not a political elite.
 
Back
Top Bottom