Pol Pot...Hero or Menace?

[Awesome!]

Everyone always talks about how cool Che was. Che couldn't hold Pol Pot's jock as far as cool goes. Pol Pot killed way more capitalists and was a greater community organizer! Che fans, get off of your high horse. Just because he had long hair, doesn't make him cooler than Pol baby!

 

[Ockham]

Well, as insane homicidal narcissistic mass murderers go, I'd have to agree Pol Pot edges out Che by a wide margin.

 

[mac]

Everyone always talks about how cool Che was. Che couldn't hold Pol Pot's jock as far as cool goes. Pol Pot killed way more capitalists and was a greater community organizer! Che fans, get off of your high horse. Just because he had long hair, doesn't make him cooler than Pol baby!

You might want to spend a sizable portion of your time with a professional and re-evaluate your standards.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Everyone always talks about how cool Che was. Che couldn't hold Pol Pot's jock as far as cool goes. Pol Pot killed way more capitalists and was a greater community organizer! Che fans, get off of your high horse. Just because he had long hair, doesn't make him cooler than Pol baby!

Are you insane?

The allure if Che was that he walked the walk... whether Hero or Menace Che gave up a cushy post in Cuba to go back into the Jungle and keep fighting, RIGHT or WRONG.

Pol Pot was a ****ing idiot that killed more % of his population then Hitler or Stalin... his own people disowned him in the end...

 

[mikhail]

Che looks good on a t-shirt.

 

[Gardener]

Che couldn't hold Pol Pot's jock

and it's certainly not for lack of opportunity.

 

[spud_meister]

che was way sexier, i mean, just look

who could possibly resist that facial hair

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Lol, another attempt to compare Che to Pol Pot. What a joke thread.

 

[spud_meister]

Lol, another attempt to compare Che to Pol Pot. What a joke thread.

but che became a dictator and ruled with an iron fist, killing millions, didn't he?

 

[Jetboogieman]

but che became a dictator and ruled with an iron fist, killing millions, didn't he?

No no no, you've got it all wrong... that was Babar

 

[Hoplite]

Are you insane?

The allure if Che was that he walked the walk... whether Hero or Menace Che gave up a cushy post in Cuba to go back into the Jungle and keep fighting, RIGHT or WRONG.

I have to agree with this.

Che showed conviction to his beliefs until he died and he died fighting for them even when he knew he couldnt win. I dont see anything like that from Pol Pot

 

[Awesome!]

Are you insane?

The allure if Che was that he walked the walk... whether Hero or Menace Che gave up a cushy post in Cuba to go back into the Jungle and keep fighting, RIGHT or WRONG.

Pol Pot was a ****ing idiot that killed more % of his population then Hitler or Stalin... his own people disowned him in the end...

To a communist I might be insane???

Che and Pol are the same. Two idiots walking the walk with murder, in their fight against human nature. Pol was just more efficient. Che couldn't handle politics and left Cuba only to be frustrated why he ended up in a jungle fighting with other idiots like him. End of story...Only an idiot picks up an AK and runs around the jungle fighting against human nature. O.k. Che was more sexy than Pol though, I guess???

 

[Awesome!]

You might want to spend a sizable portion of your time with a professional and re-evaluate your standards.

Not sure if re-evaluating standards is necessary, but maybe some honesty. When do we pick up a gun and murder like our heroes: Che and Pol? Can any of the communists on this forum please advise?

 

[Awesome!]

Well, as insane homicidal narcissistic mass murderers go, I'd have to agree Pol Pot edges out Che by a wide margin.

Not sure about that. Che was instrumental in both the USSR and the US almost destroying the planet. Che had a lot more potential but the CIA took care of that... I don't think they were homicidal. They were just trying to accomplish land reforms???

 

[Awesome!]

Lol, another attempt to compare Che to Pol Pot. What a joke thread.

Please help advise with your secret knowledge why they don't compare?

 

[Hoplite]

To a communist I might be insane???

Che and Pol are the same. Two idiots walking the walk with murder, in their fight against human nature. Pol was just more efficient. Che couldn't handle politics and left Cuba only to be frustrated why he ended up in a jungle fighting with other idiots like him. End of story...Only an idiot picks up an AK and runs around the jungle fighting against human nature. O.k. Che was more sexy than Pol though, I guess???

Do you have anything to actually back this up or are you just hurling stones because you disagree with what you think happened?

Please help advise with your secret knowledge why they don't compare?

Because they weren't in the same position of leadership (Che was a column leader for Fidel, Pot was a leader), they didnt believe the same things (Guevara was a Marxist, Pot was a Maoist), they didnt act the same way (Guevara led from the front, Pot didnt), they never met (duh), they lived in entirely different places (duh again), they lead and fought differently, they had different stated goals (Guevara wanted to lead a revolution to free the world, Pot wanted to free Kampuchea), and they didnt do the same things with the success they achieved respectively (Pot started a brutal totalitarian dictatorship and Guevara gave up a cushy position in Cuba to fight in South America and Africa for what he believed in).

The only thing these two had in common is they are disliked by people in the US and insisting otherwise, to me, smacks of severe intellectual dishonesty or unfamiliarity with the events being discussed.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Please help advise with your secret knowledge why they don't compare?

A circle and a square are both shapes, so they must be the same, too.

Pot was a Maoist

No he wasn't; he was an anti-industrial, anti-intellectual primitivist.

 

[Orion]

Pol Pot did what he did out of self-loathing and hatred for his own race after spending time in Europe. Che Guevara did what he did, originally, out of love for his people, even if his policies turned chaotic after a time.

 

[Awesome!]

A circle and a square are both shapes, so they must be the same, too.

Thank you K.C. A mere crumb, a mere sentence, yet a feast of knowledge comrade...

 

[Awesome!]

Do you have anything to actually back this up or are you just hurling stones because you disagree with what you think happened?



Because they weren't in the same position of leadership (Che was a column leader for Fidel, Pot was a leader), they didnt believe the same things (Guevara was a Marxist, Pot was a Maoist), they didnt act the same way (Guevara led from the front, Pot didnt), they never met (duh), they lived in entirely different places (duh again), they lead and fought differently, they had different stated goals (Guevara wanted to lead a revolution to free the world, Pot wanted to free Kampuchea), and they didnt do the same things with the success they achieved respectively (Pot started a brutal totalitarian dictatorship and Guevara gave up a cushy position in Cuba to fight in South America and Africa for what he believed in).

The only thing these two had in common is they are disliked by people in the US and insisting otherwise, to me, smacks of severe intellectual dishonesty or unfamiliarity with the events being discussed.

No, it's obvious that both of these idiots sought to control people in their own siddhartha's, but they were utter failures. It's comical that anyone would think they were heroes unless they believe in violent revolution, but so far I think the communists on the forum are too big of ******s to be honest about it...

 

[Hoplite]

No he wasn't; he was an anti-industrial, anti-intellectual primitivist.

Mao was certainly an anti-intellectual. I think it's fair to say that Pol Pot was at least in the same arena as Mao, ideologically.

No, it's obvious that both of these idiots sought to control people in their own siddhartha's but they were utter failures.

Guevara successfully led an armed revolution against a US backed dictator with a substantial (if somewhat poorly trained) army. I'd hardly call that a failure.

It's comical that anyone would think they were heroes unless they believe in violent revolution, but so far I think the communists on the forum are too big of ******s to be honest about it...

Violent revolution has it's place. I feel that it is necessary in certain places. I dont agree with Che who felt it would have to be a world-wide phenomenon for true change to take place.

You seem to be basically just throwing stones for no good reason, this does not make me feel inclined to take you very seriously.

 

[Awesome!]

Mao was certainly an anti-intellectual. I think it's fair to say that Pol Pot was at least in the same arena as Mao, ideologically.

Guevara successfully led an armed revolution against a US backed dictator with a substantial (if somewhat poorly trained) army. I'd hardly call that a failure.

Violent revolution has it's place. I feel that it is necessary in certain places. I dont agree with Che who felt it would have to be a world-wide phenomenon for true change to take place.

You seem to be basically just throwing stones for no good reason, this does not make me feel inclined to take you very seriously.

Tell the entire story about Che, his legacy in Cuba: lack of freedom, standard of living etc. That's all, just some honesty...

It's great that you disagree with Che, but I wouldn't advise doing that in Cuba publicly, or you may be declared a social danger and imprisoned. It's great that you can talk about violent revolution having it's place because of freedom of speech in AMERICA. People who talk about the free market don't have the same experience in Cuba, which is Che's legacy.

 

[Hoplite]

Tell the entire story about Che, his legacy in Cuba: lack of freedom, standard of living etc. That's all, just some honesty...

It's great that you disagree with Che, but I wouldn't advise doing that in Cuba publicly, or you may be declared a social danger and imprisoned. It's great that you can talk about violent revolution having it's place because of freedom of speech in AMERICA. People who talk about the free market don't have the same experience in Cuba, which is Che's legacy.

You seem to be confusing Guevara's actions with Fidel's.

When you get your ideas straight, come back and talk.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Mao was certainly an anti-intellectual. I think it's fair to say that Pol Pot was at least in the same arena as Mao, ideologically.

Mao wasn't anti-intellectual. Mao was fully supportive of the development of Chinese industry.

Pol Pot was a staunch agricultural primitivist and against anything that had to do with industrial progress.

The two simply aren't comparable.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Mao wasn't anti-intellectual. Mao was fully supportive of the development of Chinese industry.

Pol Pot was a staunch agricultural primitivist and against anything that had to do with industrial progress.

The two simply aren't comparable.

Ah someone with historical knowledge, brilliant.

Salutations Comrade!