This pissed me off

[Huelguista]

Ok, i was checking out some of the books about Che and by Che and i was looking over it like the reviews, price raitings, etc. Then i looked at the "Customers who bought this book would like;" and i saw the word Terrorism over and over. They are incinuating that Che was a terrorist or am i wrong?

Does this piss anyone else off?

[workersunity]

ya thats ridiculous, the word terrorism is used way too much and as it being a social construct is only used for the elites purpose and utterly useless

[lennonist-leninist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 01:48 AM
ya thats ridiculous, the word terrorism is used way too much and as it being a social construct is only used for the elites purpose and utterly useless
your right but i can see why some people could think of che as a terrorist. and that is becuse all of the faulse prapoganda surounding him.

[Clarksist]

Che is considered a "terrorist" because he was a guerrilla. Far too often this misinterpretation is made. The United States tries to make guerilla actions seem terroristic, because that's the only way to take down a superpower like the US.

[fernando]

Yeah did you ever watch that documentary on Discovery Channel? It claimed that Che Guevara was responsible for all those communist 'terrorist' movents such as the Red Brigades (Italy), the Red Army Faction (Germany), FARC (Colombia) and Sendero Luminoso (Peru)

But then again, what else can you expect from Yankee propaganda

[Colombia]

Well to be honest, besides the FARC(it was the ELN actually) Guevara did inspire those movements.

[fernando]

Ok fair enough with that, but does that make Che Guevara responsible for the death caused by these movements?

And if I remember correct the SL were inspired by Mao, but I might be wrong on that one

[FriedFrog]

If you read Guerrilla Warfare Che says terrorism is a legitimate tactic. This isn't 'modern' terrorism, however. It is "well managed sabotage", in order to create fear (terror) in the enemy civil forces, such as the police.

[Vallegrande]

Terrorism is an option when someone's plea is not being answered. A terrorist is someone who has been ignored until he/she decides to take extreme action in order to be heard. The US does not negotiate with terrorists, so there will be terrorists until the US is able to listen to them, not ignore them.

[Hasta Siempre!]

In Guerrila Warfare, Che does mention the use of terrorist tactics, ONLY in order to demoralize or cripple the enemy. He did not condone random terrorist acts that resulted in the loss of innocent lives or had no real effect aginst the enemy. Che made a huge effort to express how important civilian population support is to a guerilla force. Terrorizing them would be counter-productive.

[cephyr]

Also, by the FBI's definition of terrorism (which I consider accurate), Che was a terrorist. By the FBI, terrorism is defined as taking of military action in order to implement social or economic policy against a country by any organization which is not a country themselves. Terrorism is, in fact, revolution.

The real problem lies in the broad connotations of the word terrorist. Terrorist has become synonomous with car bombings, hijackings, and Arab men who strap bombs to themselves and run into restaurants. Bush's War on Terrorism is a War Against Revolution, and in a broader sense a War against Dissent.

Absolutely sickening.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:00 AM
Also, by the FBI's definition of terrorism (which I consider accurate), Che was a terrorist. By the FBI, terrorism is defined as taking of military action in order to implement social or economic policy against a country by any organization which is not a country themselves. Terrorism is, in fact, revolution.

The real problem lies in the broad connotations of the word terrorist. Terrorist has become synonomous with car bombings, hijackings, and Arab men who strap bombs to themselves and run into restaurants. Bush's War on Terrorism is a War Against Revolution, and in a broader sense a War against Dissent.

Absolutely sickening.
you can't define terrorism. the best way to think about it is 'one peoples' freedom fighter is another peoples' terrorist'.

I think that's the only logical conclusion we can come to. Nothing else will do justice to the term - in bin Laden's mind, 9/11 was something that was necessary, but in the minds of many it was an act against innocent lives.

Whatever side you fall on, you can't convince the other of a terrorist-like act. Some say its justified while others dont. We shouldnt try to pinpoint terrorism to a textbook definition, rather, as critical thinkers (which, I hope we all are) should approach the situation with an open mind paying little to bias...in words such as 'terrorism'.

Just my 2 cents..

[cccpcommie]

quit being ignorant..if your a communist you ARE a terrorist..to a capitalist..vice versa
che used guerilla warfare..he had to of killed innocent people..had to of so he IS a terrorist. he brought terror to the usa..therefore hes a terrorist..i love the guy and all but hell im a terrorist to then..am i wrong?

[Hasta Siempre!]

yes, you are wrong.
I have to say thats a pretty bleak outlook on communism. to say all communists are terrorists in the eyes of capitalists makes no sense. Also, che made every effort during the revolution to gain the favor and trust of pesants and civillians. He also made every effort to help enemy soldiers injured in battle and send them away. Now there is no doubt in my mind innocent people suffered and died during the revolution, at the hands of BOTH SIDES,but in war, sometimes innocent people suffer. Its not fair, but thats war.

[novemba]

as much as you want to fight it, your opinions aren't necessarily right, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, and there is nothing you can do but try and enlighten the ignorant

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:58 PM
as much as you want to fight it, your opinions aren't necessarily right, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, and there is nothing you can do but try and enlighten the ignorant
Just look at the Contras and the Reagan administration.

I guess the difference though, is that we are living in a time when Terrorism means high jacking planes and killing thousands of people. So the term Terrorist is a horrific stigma and a very strong accusation. One that shouldn't be put on anyone's ideological enemy.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 11:58 PM
as much as you want to fight it, your opinions aren't necessarily right, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist, and there is nothing you can do but try and enlighten the ignorant
finally somebody gets it...(didn't you read my post?!)

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 08:31 PM
Ok, i was checking out some of the books about Che and by Che and i was looking over it like the reviews, price raitings, etc. Then i looked at the "Customers who bought this book would like;" and i saw the word Terrorism over and over. They are incinuating that Che was a terrorist or am i wrong?

Does this piss anyone else off?
Bow to che, worship him. Honestly.

[Raisa]

It doesnt piss me off.

Because I dont expect anything from capitalists anyway. What Che fought for was terror to them. God forbid they have to come back with the wrest of us!

[the fury]

reminds me of the saying,

"One man's freedom fighter can be another man's terrorist."

[Free Palestine]

To share an anecdote of sorts, many years ago when I was still in High School, when I first began to become intellectually curious and form my political opinions and arrive at the positions I now hold, et cetera.. Anyway, I was almost finished with Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (by Jon Lee Anderson, has a big picture of Che on the front) and carried it with me from class to class. As a testament to the ignorance of my classmates, I was constantly bombarded with the question of whether the figure on the cover was "some terrorist." I specifically remember another student stopping me to ask if it was Saddam Hussein.

[Xian]

This means nothing really. The Black Panthers were considered terrorists and so were the American fore-fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Adams) during the American Revolution.

[emma gg]

The word is being used to instill fear. we are nothing more than fascist germany. instead of jews, we hate arabs, but we call them terrorists. we have always, in all the americas, hated dark-skinned people. we even called the irish and italians "black" when we wanted to exclude them from meaningful political dialog (as if such a beastie existed)
let's face it, the terrorists that brought down the WTC were ingenious, brilliant and did exactly what they wanted. our govt can poke fun at osama, but they still haven't found him and inflicted their justice on him. it seems that our society is becoming a victim of our own hubris.
i don't believe che was a terrorist, because that word has no meaning. it's a political construct and we should recognize it as such.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by emma [email protected] 10 2005, 08:06 PM
The word is being used to instill fear. we are nothing more than fascist germany. instead of jews, we hate arabs, but we call them terrorists. we have always, in all the americas, hated dark-skinned people. we even called the irish and italians "black" when we wanted to exclude them from meaningful political dialog (as if such a beastie existed)
let's face it, the terrorists that brought down the WTC were ingenious, brilliant and did exactly what they wanted. our govt can poke fun at osama, but they still haven't found him and inflicted their justice on him. it seems that our society is becoming a victim of our own hubris.
i don't believe che was a terrorist, because that word has no meaning. it's a political construct and we should recognize it as such.
^ Everything said here was correct.

[werewolf]

To share an anecdote of sorts, many years ago when I was still in High School, when I first began to become intellectually curious and form my political opinions and arrive at the positions I now hold, et cetera.. Anyway, I was almost finished with Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (by Jon Lee Anderson, has a big picture of Che on the front) and carried it with me from class to class. As a testament to the ignorance of my classmates, I was constantly bombarded with the question of whether the figure on the cover was "some terrorist." I specifically remember another student stopping me to ask if it was Saddam Hussein.

That happened to me the first couple of times I wore my "Resist Oppression" shirt. However once I explained it, everyone became really interested. In fact, my organization actually got several members as a result of the interest in me wearing that shirt.

The one teacher stopped me in the hallway and was like, "Che Guevara, huh?" I said, "yeah." He then asked, "Was he a good man?" Well...I didn't really know the teacher too well....but I decided to take a chance, "Yeah." The teacher then said, "I wish I could convince other people that." I then later found out from other people that he's a Communist....and ironically is in charge of the In School Suspension room.

[angus_mor]

What you have to remember, is that America once called 'terrorists' guerilla warriors. Che wrote the book on guerilla warefare, and called it Guerilla Warefare!
Furthermore, he believed in radical ideas that oppose the american way of life.
But it is unconstitutional to slanderize w/ the word terrorist, so yes, I think thats bullshit.