Why wasnt Che a terrorist?

[fernando]

Okay...when you mention Che Guevara, the immediate response you seem to get here (in Holland) is "terrorist bla bla", but why? Why do they see Che Guevara as a terrorist and not Willem van Oranje (the guy who liberated Holland from the Spanish), they were both 'liberators' to a certain degree right?

Help me out here?

[MKS]

Okay...when you mention Che Guevara, the immediate response you seem to get here (in Holland) is "terrorist bla bla", but why

Simple racism. The Dutch like most white governments label any non-white person who acts against their intrests as a terrorist. Another reason is that Che probably antagonized a rebellion in the Congo, and other African nations, areas of Dutch/Belgian intrest. Obviously Che wasnt a terrorist he never advocated the targeting of civilian targets.

[Big Boss]

Actually, he despised anyone who used such a method of advocating for a cause. That's the reson for war, if you want to get a point across, go and fight for it. Not to go out and kill innocent civilians for the fun of doing it.

[Le People]

He was an Internationalist who took up just cause and not hijacking air planes.

[Warren Peace]

He was an Internationalist who took up just cause and not hijacking air planes.


Hijaking airplanes can be a good revolutionary tactic when it doesn't harm civilians. For example, the Japanese Red Army, an Internationalist guerilla group, hijaked a Japan Airlines plane over the Netherlands, but they stopped in Libya and released all the passengers unharmed.

[Le People]

My point is, he wasn't a loner. He was intelligent and rural.

[谢梓唯]

We are living in a funny world. Different people inevitably have different viewpoints about others; Too bad their viewpoints are always affected by others; what's worse, they prefer to stick with what they are initially told!

Get used to it! After all, no matter what they say, what they do, Che is not a terrorist whatsoever.

[civus]

Petite bourgeoise democracy has never taken a sentimental view of war. They repeatdly condemn war and violence but all the while are the most violent of all nations: i.e. America, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia.

[谢梓唯]

It just Seems so! We have a saying"挂羊头，卖狗肉"

[patria grande]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 07:03 PM
Why do they see Che Guevara as a terrorist and not Willem van Oranje (the guy who liberated Holland from the Spanish), they were both 'liberators' to a certain degree right?

Help me out here?
Why G. Washington is not a terrorist?
The brand "terrorist" is given to the people depending on which side of the conflict they are. In this case for the U.S this man was a freedom fighter.
For example, during the struggles to liberate Latin America from Spain, there were documents calling Simón Bolívar or José de San Martín "tupamaros" a derogatory term used to link them to Tupac Amaru, another freedom fighter.
That´s the origin of the name later used by the Tupamaro Guerrilla.

[Clarksist]

They think he was a terrorist because he didn't have the ability to pull of a bourgeois war style.

He was a guerilla, and because of that, people assume he is fighting "dirty". When really he is fighting "the only way he can".

[谢梓唯]

Yes, Che is a "terrorist"! He is "terrorist" against Unjustice and Imperialism.

[bombeverything]

Answer their question with a question. Ask them to define "terrorism". Then inform them that state terrorism is also a form of terror.

[chebol]

It's also the origin of the Tupamaros in Venezuela today, although they have collaborated with other groups of the same name so as not to step on any toes.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Terrorism is by definition a person, group, or country that inflicts terror on another person, group, or country. So technically Che was a terrorist, like just about anyone who uses force and terrorises someone or something.
Just explain who he terrorised and why. Explain that he didn't terrorise innocent civilians, instead he terrorised corrupt and oppressive regimes. Ask the person who calls Che a terrorist, in a derogetory sense, isn't it right that he stood up to these despicable regimes and terrorised them? Ask them whether they think it appropriate for countries to terrorise other countries, America terrorising Vietnam, Iraq etc. Without someone in turn trying to terrorise them into stopping?

[comradesteele]

yay no one else has said it!

"one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"

[fernando]

I dont know about that, I dont think all terrorists are fighting for "freedom", I wouldnt really call Bin Laden a freedom fighter, or anybody else who would want to either convert everybody to his/her religion or kill them ;)

[OleMarxco]

I don't actually think the attack on the World'rade Center was religiously motivated :P
An terrorist is by definition - someone who uses "unconventional method's" i.e. like holdin' innocent's hostage. Did Che do that? Not to my knowledge! ;)

[Led Zeppelin]

fernando, the majority of the Dutch population --like in all imperialist/capitalist nations-- are ignorant.

[OleMarxco]

Are you sayin' the -INTERNATIONAL- working class is stupid? Typical-Leninist generalization :P
</hypocrisy>

[fernando]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:05 PM
I don&#39;t actually think the attack on the World&#39;rade Center was religiously motivated :P

I wouldnt call the Al Qaida attack on New York a communist/socialist attack, they themselves are capitalists too, only thing that differentiates them from the Western capitalists is their religion ;)


An terrorist is by definition - someone who uses "unconventional method&#39;s" i.e. like holdin&#39; innocent&#39;s hostage. Did Che do that? Not to my knowledge&#33; ;)
Unconventional methods? That is a very unclear concept, holding hostages is an example of one, what about others? What about civilian casualties..etc?


fernando, the majority of the Dutch population --like in all imperialist/capitalist nations-- are ignorant.
True, eventhough our proletariat are very exited when you show up with a communist flag to a workers demonstration, however the rest of the time you will get angry responses for the socialist/revolutionary ideas.


Are you sayin&#39; the -INTERNATIONAL- working class is stupid? Typical-Leninist generalization
Hmm I dont know if they are stupid or not, but for some reason the masses wont rise up on themselves, they need a person or persons to show them.

[weslokation]

I honestly believe that Bin Laden is a freedom fighter for his cause. Just cause his tactics have never been used, does not make him the devil. Believes for war are changing and we have to change and research the circumstances of any people that are fighting.

Che was a terrorist, but then again all the Independencs fighters of all the countries of the world would have been considered terrorists for the simple fact that they are causing havoc among the people.

[fernando]

I honestly believe that Bin Laden is a freedom fighter for his cause.
Just that his cause takes away all freedom from people and forces them to believe in a certain god. Ok ok islam people will say that this wouldnt be "real islam", but shouldnt we have the freedom to persuit whatever religious ideas we want?


Just cause his tactics have never been used, does not make him the devil.
His tactics have been used before, nobody here said he was the devil or anything like that.


Believes for war are changing and we have to change and research the circumstances of any people that are fighting.

True, these movements try to fight against the big enemy in their own way because they cant fight the "traditional" way, however does this mean civilian locations should be targeted and bombed, killing thousands?


Che was a terrorist, but then again all the Independencs fighters of all the countries of the world would have been considered terrorists for the simple fact that they are causing havoc among the people.
Depends on your definition of a terrorist ;)

[LSD]

I honestly believe that Bin Laden is a freedom fighter for his cause.

You can&#39;t be a freedom fighter "for a cause". You can only be a freedom fighter if you fight for freedom.

Bin Laden does not.

[Zapata]

terrorism is not simply the concept of using unconventional methods of combat. guerrilla warfare is not terrorism, but it is, or at least was, unconventional. terrorism is the killing of, in most cases, innocent people, in order to scare a large number of people. killing regular, innocent people is certainly no way to win them over to your cause, and that is one of che guevara&#39;s main ideas. he believed in unifying the people, especially the lower class. killing them is completely counterproductive to that.

[weslokation]

I wouldnt really call Bin Laden a freedom fighter, or anybody else who would want to either convert everybody to his/her religion or kill them

The Soviet Union at the time of Socialist Power did use force to get their point across. They did kill and imprison anybody that didn&#39;t follow the communism ideals. Cuba is known to do that, but that does not make them terrorists? No that just makes them enforcers of their government.


True, these movements try to fight against the big enemy in their own way because they cant fight the "traditional" way, however does this mean civilian locations should be targeted and bombed, killing thousands

In order for any war to be fought, it doesn&#39;t matter for what cause, there has to be civilian casualties and massacre. If it is Bin Laden with the airplane heist. to the American forces claiming false information when school are bombed in Iraq. That&#39;s just something that has to be dealt with.

[fernando]

The Soviet Union at the time of Socialist Power did use force to get their point across. They did kill and imprison anybody that didn&#39;t follow the communism ideals.
I see the USSR as another imperialist superpower...just because they followed "communism" doesnt change that&#33;



Cuba is known to do that, but that does not make them terrorists? No that just makes them enforcers of their government.

So would you call Bin Laden an enforces of his religion? That doesnt really make him a freedom fighter now does it ;)

[Lex]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 07:48 PM
"If fire fighters fight fire, and crime fighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight?" - George Carlin on the Contras (labelled "freedom fighters" by Reagan)
Good definition...
Is Che a terrorist? Different people have different viewpoints...up to their definition of the word..Just think about what you said, so is Che like Bin Laden?..Non sence..

[rahul]

here too.............in india

have a look at bhagatsingh thread in politics.. ..( http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40395 )

i dont think its because of racism..............
its just the way the society look at a foriegn revolutionary&#33;

[drain.you]

When does a terrorist become a freedom fighter? People who liberated the US are considered freedom fighters because there are so many Americans and naturally they gonna believe this. Where as Bin Laden is codemned as a terrorist because the majority of the world do not agree with his views.
Che Guevara&#39;s views dont have a majority following so I suppose that makes him a terrorist to everyone but the minority who follows his beliefs.

[Zapata]

again..terrorists use the concept of scaring large numbers of people by killing innocent people. che didn&#39;t do that, and was in fact against it.

[drain.you]

Yeah I suppose you&#39;re right. I dont want to brand Che with the label of terrorist but I could see how a capitalist society could argue this. I mean, if we had a communist nation and a rebel was working against us then we wouldn&#39;t be too pleased and we&#39;d probably make him/her a martyr by killing them like Che was killed to help our nation&#39;s political beliefs survive and not be turned to the enemy.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Simple racism. The Dutch like most white governments label any non-white person who acts against their intrests as a terrorist.
Wasn&#39;t Che "light-coloured"/"non-black"?
I think it has to do because he resisted imperialism around the world. This sounds like a terrible cliche, but Cuba is by many US-fans described as a "democratic republic" or "pseudo-democracy" during US occupation during the early 20th century, US control of Cuba during over half of the 20th century, etc.
I have even talked to people who were wearing Che T-shirts. I asked him if he knew who the man was, and he said "he was a racist".

I&#39;ve heard rightwing people calling him a psychopath, but I don&#39;t think grown-up psychopaths cry when they see their mom after six years, and some years later cry again when he hear his mother is about to die/has died.

[DisIllusion]

Well if we&#39;re going to use the example of Osama Bin Laden again,

Osama Bin Laden is a Terrorist because he has to resort to the killing of innocent civilians in order to get his point heard.

Ernesto &#39;Che&#39; Guevara is a Guerilla because he targets the enemy&#39;s military, with the help of innocent civilians in the area, as shown in chapter one of "Guerilla Warfare"

And personally, I think if you buy a Che shirt, you&#39;re basically going against what Che died fighting for. The stopping of Imperialism.

[Urban Guerrilla]

Calling Che a terrorist is propaganda and ignorance :che:

[Rojo]

I honestly believe that Bin Laden is a freedom fighter for his cause

i don&#39;t think so. wasn&#39;t bin laden supported by the taliban who at the time were supressing womens rights and selling drugs and that kind of stuff. if bin laden was a freedom fighter why didn&#39;t he start freeing the country he was based in before trying to attack the USA.

[Rojo]

And personally, I think if you buy a Che shirt, you&#39;re basically going against what Che died fighting for. The stopping of Imperialism.

i agree why do we have all those advertisements up there? aren&#39;t we supposed to be a communist forum? seems kind of ironic that we critizise capitalism in the forum but then right above it we advocate that same thing. ;)

[BeardedBolshevist]

Must we use such hot words as "terrorism"? you&#39;ll find that it is much more ambiguous than simple explosions and suicide bombs. it is the instilment of terror as a weapon, fear as a means to an end. One thing i think more people say than understand is that "Bush is a terrorist", which is certainly true. however, the first victims of his terrorism are the American Proletariat, and the weapon he wields this terror with is his tongue. Certainly Gueverra was a terrorist, most people considered as hero&#39;s by many (this includes both Bush and Bin Laden, not to mention Lenin, Mao, and Washington) are terrorists. The simple fact of the matter is that terrorism isnt at all uncommon. People should be judged more harshly on the cause they fight fore than they should for whether or not they are the t-word. It is simply this decades hot word, and I, for one, try to avoid using it as much as possible. The bitter irony is that people who constantly blabber about terrorism often do so to inspire terror in others, thus rendering them passive terrorists. Terrorist? Freedom Fighter? More of a matter of language than opinion. I welcom anybody who disagree&#39;s to speak their mind, for this forum is one of the few on the net whose participants generally have good and enlightened opinions (has anybody seen the rabidly ignorant babble coming from the masses on IMDB?). Another note, I dont believe critique of Che is based on racism as was mentioned earlier, for Che is racially caucasian, unless of course we adhere to the "one drop rule".

[DisIllusion]

I agree Comrade, we shouldn&#39;t label people as terrorists right off the bat just because CNN says they are. But still even under your definition, Bin Laden is still a terrorist and Bush may be one too, but Che only targeted military targets so I guess that makes him more of a freedom fighter if there is a difference between the two.

[r`n`l]

"A terrorist is one who uses violence or threat of violence against civilians for own advantage where as a revolutionary fights to change the society and eradicate its oppressors for the masses.A revolutionary may or may not use violence or its threat against the oppress but never against civilians" Ernesto Che Guevara

[Zapata]

actually the taliban essentially shut down the opium trade in afghanistan, and it has since flourished since their destruction. however, osama bin laden is NOT a freedom fighter because A) he&#39;s not fighting for a cause that is, or was originally, really legitimate; american troops on the arabian peninsula is not akin to a dictatorship government, although no doubt the us has a broad influence on arab politics, and B) the actions he takes (blowing up world trade center full of innocent civilians, blowing up buses in london and trains in madrid, again, full of innocent civilians) amount to killing people with no direct impact on what it is he wants or any perceived harm done to the arab countries. a real freedom fighter is not a terrorist

[r`n`l]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:09 PM
B) the actions he takes (blowing up world trade center full of innocent civilians, ˇ
actualy i think that wtc destruction was done by US government itself (only my opinion - just wanted to share it ... - " history will absolve me")

[Guerrilla22]

I don&#39;t think the Us government did it themselves, but I definitely think they knew of the attack in advance and failed to prevent it.

[BeardedBolshevist]

I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if Israel had a hand in it...

[Rojo]

i don&#39;t know america destroying thousands of its own citizens is a very radical idea. somone that knew of it would&#39;ve cracked by now and told the world about the conspiracy.

[DanRev]

Bin laden was a terrorist, he used terror as his main weapon. Even if no one died during the attack on the twin towers, bin laden would STILL have acheived the terrorist status, Because people would be afraid of another attack.

[El Camarada]

The thing is that a terrorist is someone or a group who, as the name suggests, intend to cause terror to the masses. for instance blowing up the WTC was terrorism because it cause mass terror. its not just to do with how you do it. Of course it is a very loose term, in my opinion Bush and Blair could both be classed as Terrorists, they&#39;ve inflicted terror on people all through the Middle-East, but of course it&#39;s debatable.

And about the USA&#39;s involvment in 9/11, its very strange. All the Bush familys oil connections. Personally i think that the government knew it was comming. and they left it. just as they did at Pearl Harbour. They needed a new banner for people to gather under, as Pearl Harbour was used to join WW2 in Europe, they took advantage of it to invade Iraq/Afghanistan and possibley now Iran. They even went to the lengths of blowing up the WTC7 (a small office block on the site) to make it look worse. Of course this isn&#39;t proven but it collapsed inwards and to do that all 4 supports would have to collapse at the same time which is highly unlikely.

[Zapata]

i mistrust the american government pretty deeply, but i certainly do not think they had any hand in any of the destruction of september 11. even if it was in some way a convenient "banner to rally under" that&#39;s just not something they&#39;d have done, and if they had, someone would have leaked it by now. and why would israel have a hand in the attacks?

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:51 AM
I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if Israel had a hand in it...
Please explain why.

[Zapata]

what good would israel accomplish by aiding an attack on the united states, basically its sole major protector in the world? you could maybe argue that it would provoke a retaliation on countries that are enemies of israel, thus benefiting israel, but that&#39;s pretty far-fetched.