che guevara killed people :'( (boo-hoo)

Post Reply New Topic

im so sick of hearing this.

YES HE DID, he was a revolutionary and a SOLDIER. SOLDIERS CARRY GUNS AND THEY KILL PEOPLE. LOTS OF PEOPLE.

"but but... he excecuted people :'("

playing the state-the-obvious game are we?

YES HE SHOOT PEOPLE IN THEIR FACE.
THEY WERE ENEMIES OF HIS CAUSE.
again, he had to shoot enemies of his cause because heee was a
MILITARY COMMANDER.....

people have such LAME expectations for life. as if the guy who invaded and conquered cuba would be hugging his enemies, kissing them on the cheek, wtf. OF COURSE HE KILLED PEOPLE.
if little wannabe socialist "radicals" cant handle the idea of killing and destruction, they should just forget about politics, and do like their friends, and worry about musicians and gossip.

Well I'm a pacifist, and I don't support violence under any circumstances. You can carry out social change and positive transformation of nations and peoples without resorting to violence, ever hear of little things called ahimsa or Satyagraha? Violence only breeds more violence, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, yadda yadda yadda, I'll make my exit now. But I frown upon Che Gueverra's methods.

what gets me is peoples expectations. always simplistic.
they see a poster of che, and assume he must be jesus, then theyre told hes not jesus, and they get heartbroken that che actually ordered people to be killed.

what about churchill? did he hug his way to peace? people buy all kinds of crap, but PERSPECTIVE isnt even sold in stores

Has anyone actually called Che Jesus? That seems like a bit of a stretch. He was a man who had ideas and a passion to change the world, but ends don't always justify the means, and he failed to realize this.
Either way, I don't like Churchill either, so that didn't really appeal to me. Seems like you're more angry at people having principles of finding solutions other than bloodshed than anything else.

Wait, people actually are unaware of this?!

aw dont be so touchy. im "angry" at people who join fads, without knowing them.
people DO see che as a messiah, you have just to meet "young radicals" kind of people w che posters on their wall.

i just want people to know their heroes, before they worship them. any hero.
if an eager young socialist tells me "i love che, cus he had big hairy balls, and shot people down through their mouths!" i will actually respect them just as i'd respect any honest opinion. ignorance is what gets me.

and i am, in all honesty, not all that opposed to bloodshed either. the human species is the first and only organism on earth, to think twice about killing.

/RANT :]

Actually, Churchill had some pretty awesome quotes <.< .

Awwe...but he had good and noble intentions in his heart. Mao's China was in that bad of a shape that millions of people would have been killed to keep the country from falling into anarchy - poor guy took the rap for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. For Joe - it was those pesky Ukranian farmers.....well lets see here....ANY mass systemmatic flushing, especially from the top down or from a people's movement usually kills many hundreds of thousands if not millions, its why most sane people avoid it like the plague; even if a person endorses the innitial cause its a great way to have it mutate into something really despotic.

Seriously though, with these kids you have to understand its fashion - nothing more. If somethings edgy, mysterious, different, seeminly big like its the next big thing coming - kids will eat it cold off a tile floor; that's just what being that age is like. Its part of why I really question voting at 18, its not like much of anyone has a clue what's going on aside from a) what's popular or b) what their parents innundate them with. Particularly in places like the U.S., probably many other first world countries - we grow up in a hell of a bubble and between TV, Britny, videogames, it takes years to shake all of that off for a great many people while another great many never successfully do. Many of these same people couldn't even be asked to scale a fish let alone slaughter a cow for their own cheeseburger, its kind of surreal when you think about it.

THANK YOU!

i agree, murdering people for your cause is a cause worth killing for.


VIVA BUSH!!

stop being angry! he did what he had to do for the sake of you!

did you just compare

1. a guy who fought for a true cause, who lived and died for system that emphasizes the people (in theory. its the thought that counts), and never in his lifetime wallowed in the riches that his enemies were known for?

and

2. a guy who bombed two whole dirt poor countries to s**t, for eight years traight, for his own wallet, despite having his true intentions revealed for the whole world? even from the thought-counts angle, bush thought about jumping on top of arab people's bears, simple cus he dislikes arabs.

good job.
you sure got your
P E R S P E C T I V E straight

Che Guevara was a great man in the sense that he lived his ideals and was ready to die for them. Through murder, he was no different to a lot of other great men in trying to change the world. His beard was also very cool. It's a shame that Marxism isn't. It's just another arrogant system with the keys to history pitting illusory classes into permanent war with eachother. There is no communist society. It can't happen because technology still hasn't freed itself from human labour enough to give all of us enough of what we want. So as humans, we hoard what we have - through emmigration laws, through property laws etc. You're doing it yourself this very moment with your computer and whatever other commodities you own. I'll go out on a limb and tell you, you could probably save a few starving africans with the commodities and money you're keeping selfishly for yourself. That's Bourgois and that's human.

Bush as a product of his environment, didn't live his revolution, so in that sense, he's not ass cool as Che. But I don't think his cause was any worse than Marxism. Just like so many revolutionaries tried to apply a utopian vision of history and society onto people who didn't want it or couldn't work it, Bush tried to change society in Iraq. Any liberal would see this as a good thing. But Iraq or Afghanistan couldn't be transformed by bombs and money alone.

Marxism is wrong. And it will be wrong until technology can free production from labour. For that we need innovation and for inovation we need liberalism

the only reason you view bush in that sense is because your ideal is contrary to that of bush's and his supporters.

i am glad we view things in perspective now.

bbl, going to hang an osama poster in my room.

politically, i am anarchoprimitivist, or something close to it, so i dont care about marxism or socialism. if bush was some self tought guerrilladude in the mountains of afghanistan, shooting people himself, in the name of liberalism and freedom, i would root for him. everybody knows thats not the case, not even close to it, and it had nothing to do with freedom, or afghans and iraqis would be happy as a swede by now.

Pardon me, but its the results that count.

It's the methods that count. If you get to your end utopian results by killing off everyone who disagrees with you, you're doing it wrong.

i prefer closing my eyes tightly, and thinking about utopia.

in the meantimes, you men-of-action can go outside, and do stuff :]