Che - whats the deal?

[bringitdownnow]

i am a "che supporter"
not just che but his ideals ect ect. and i wear a shirt with his face on it.
i almost got beat up for wearing it once because it made some guy angry
whats the deal? if you get offended tell me why ok?
cheers all ;)

[Everyday Anarchy]

Many people (right wingers, cappies, etc) don't see Che the same way we do.
They see Che as we see...oh, Ronald Reagan, for example. They call him a mass-murderer, mercenary, a fake, et cetera.

But most of all... they see him as a threat to their power hold on the people. So the way Antifa groups beat up fascists, they're likely to beat up Che supporters.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 03:42 AM
Many people (right wingers, cappies, etc) don't see Che the same way we do.
They see Che as we see...oh, Ronald Reagan, for example. They call him a mass-murderer, mercenary, a fake, et cetera.

But most of all... they see him as a threat to their power hold on the people. So the way Antifa groups beat up fascists, they're likely to beat up Che supporters.
um no.

first of all 90% of the poele who wear these shirts have no idea who che is.

second of all, che WAS a mass murder and such (unlike reagen..)

[LSD]

second of all, che WAS a mass murder and such (unlike reagen..)

Sure, if you forget about Nicaragua and Iran and about half a dozen other countries where Reagan can be directly tied to massive civilian deaths.

Sorry, mate, your "hero" was a monster and his prolonged suffering and death was well fucking deserved. :angry:

[theraven]

Sure, if you forget about Nicaragua and Iran and about half a dozen other countries where Reagan can be directly tied to massive civilian deaths.

nicruaga aws a civil war, we just choose a side, and iran? how so.


Sorry, mate, your "hero" was a monster and his prolonged suffering and death was well fucking deserved. mad.gif

no, wahtever you think of his poliitcs no one desreves alzhiemres.r

[Gura]

nicruaga aws a civil war, we just choose a side, and iran? how so.
Right, Nicaragua was a civil war in which Reagan chose the side of the death squads against a legitimate revolutionary government. And with Iran, Reagan's government was friendly with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war and with the Iranian government, to which he sold missiles. Also add the tens of thousands of people killed in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, the governments (and death squads) of which were also backed by Reagan and the CIA. So yes, Reagan was mass murderer.


no, wahtever you think of his poliitcs no one desreves alzhiemres.r
Because others can say this more eloquiently than I:
http://ruthlessreviews.com/rants/matt/orgasms.html


"Some would argue that Ronald Reagan’s death on June 5, 2004 was the day the air seemed that much fresher, and the sun that much brighter, but I return to that crisp fall day when his ordeal truly began, which for the Gipper meant a full decade of verbal assaults launched at Nancy, shit-smeared and urine-stained sheets for the Dragon Lady to clean, and more ear-piercing gibberish than a trunk full of Peggy Noonan’s hyperbolic speeches. Ronnie, for every dollar you spent funding right-wing death squads in Central America, I hope there was a comparable minute of teary frustration as you tried to remember the name for that withered scab of bacon you held in your trembling hands as you urinated yet again on your neighbor’s lawn. For every fascistic commercial citing "Morning in America" while the cities fell further into ruin, I can only believe that there was an equally hellish evening spent chasing your already alienated children around the ranch with a butcher knife. And for every time you blamed the homeless for their plight, or refused to acknowledge AIDS because you were a homophobic creep, I sleep the sleep of the just knowing that your final years were hideous, torturous, and unbearably odorous."

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by theraven+Apr 25 2006, 04:12 AM--> (theraven @ Apr 25 2006, 04:12 AM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 03:42 AM
Many people (right wingers, cappies, etc) don't see Che the same way we do.
They see Che as we see...oh, Ronald Reagan, for example. They call him a mass-murderer, mercenary, a fake, et cetera.

But most of all... they see him as a threat to their power hold on the people. So the way Antifa groups beat up fascists, they're likely to beat up Che supporters.
um no.

first of all 90% of the poele who wear these shirts have no idea who che is.

second of all, che WAS a mass murder and such (unlike reagen..) [/b]
I doubt it's that high, and even if they don't know who he is then perhaps they are stirring interest in Che himself and his cause by serving as walking billboards for it. And if you counted, the deaths Che is responsible for would be far less than the deaths Ronald Reagan was responsible for. Besides which Che was fighting for a worthy goal, while Reagan...

[theraven]

Right, Nicaragua was a civil war in which Reagan chose the side of the death squads against a legitimate revolutionary government. And with Iran, Reagan's government was friendly with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war and with the Iranian government, to which he sold missiles. Also add the tens of thousands of people killed in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, the governments (and death squads) of which were also backed by Reagan and the CIA. So yes, Reagan was mass murderer.

"a legitmaite revolutiony govenrment" im sorry but i don't thik reagen was interasted in "revolutiotnary governemnts" Reagan was a good prseidetn of the united states. that was his primrary interast and he served it well.



I doubt it's that high, and even if they don't know who he is then perhaps they are stirring interest in Che himself and his cause by serving as walking billboards for it. And if you counted, the deaths Che is responsible for would be far less than the deaths Ronald Reagan was responsible for. Besides which Che was fighting for a worthy goal, while Reagan...

lol che was a terrorist and an adventuerar. I don't praticaualy dislike him, except the fact that he was a communist. Reagan was fghting for a very worthy cause..he was figthing for a repubclin versus che who lstarted the castro dictaotrship

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Many cappies focus on la cabaña. They also say that he shot each and every prisoner in the head. I like to point out that 1. These prisoners are thugs, rapists, murderers and robbers, and 2. That he did not shoot them he was basically the warden by Castro's order.

Raven makes a typical conservative arguement. He forgets that Reagan put the US into the largest deficeit ever thus risking the complete collapse of the economy and the burden on our generation. Also, Raven ignores that Che was fighting for a people's communism. A leninist gov't based on democratic principles. I think that when he forsaw that this would not happen, he left.

[overlord]

Sorry, mate, your "hero" was a monster


Oh so? What does that make your garden variety communist standup man? A nice guy? Reagan was perhaps the best President the US ever had. You're just peeved because he helped to destroy that ridiculously huge mass enslavement mining corporation known as the Soviet Union.

Ye just like Che because he went trouncing round the globe with the windswept hairdo spreading 'revolution', when he usually just took out his frustration on poverty ridden farmers. And what was the deal with that Rolex? How can someone that admires glory not become corrupted by the material desires of capitalism? I have!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by overlord
Reagan was perhaps the best President the US ever had.

The people who were members of the old Professional Air Traffic Controllers Association have a different opinion.

I imagine most historians, even bourgeois academics, agree.

It was, by the way, one of the most corrupt administrations in U.S. history.

Of course, it's known that during his second term, the actual president was Nancy Reagan's astrologer...so that's the guy to which you should really give the credit. :lol:

After the revolution, we'll rename Alzheimer's Disease as Reagan's Disease.

A fitting tribute. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[overlord]

It was, by the way, one of the most corrupt administrations in U.S. history.


Really? I guess I was too young to remember. One thing I do remember though is during a press conference one of his minders had to supply some basic words for him for some phrases he was stumbling around :lol: . I thought it was funny at the time, but I didn't know about the brain rot.

[England Expects]

Che t-shirts just seem like a laughable cliche to me.

You were probably harassed on the grounds of your appaling taste.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

guess what , those Che t-shirts are brought to you by capitalism

anyways, i just see el Che as another idiot who got radicalized to the left, because he simple saw POVERTY in the world, :o WOW!! POVERTY!! i guess he didn't know what poverty was or something? so he than had to find someone to blame, of course the usual leftist blame of the "bourgeois", in that case the USA...so he wants to spread revolution in Latin America because Latin American countries are the puppet of the USA, so in the example of Cuba the government is replaced only to become the puppet of someone else=TA DA!!! U S S R!! and Che basically helps and fights to implement totalitarian regimes with no rights of free speech to the people and by the way might i add Che was the director of prision camps in Cuba and of course order himself the execution of thousands, gee i don't remember Reagan ordering the execution by firing squad of thousands? hummm :rolleyes: so i guess in your "leftist/anti american" eyes Reagan is a mass murderer because he might have sided with a faction in Nicaragua which fought a "leftist revolition faction"?? so that makes him more of a killer than el Che ordering himself the killings of thousands? :rolleyes: ohh god, by the way guys if by the way you label Reagan as a killer you might as well label Brezhnev, Krushchev, Gorbaschev, and i don't know how many other freaking world leaders past and present as "murderers"....

[LSD]

ohh god, by the way guys if by the way you label Reagan as a killer you might as well label Brezhnev, Krushchev, Gorbaschev, and i don't know how many other freaking world leaders past and present as "murderers"....

Indeed.

Brezhnev, Krushchev, Gorbaschev, and "many other ... world leaders" were indeed all mass murderers. The type of person who "rises to authority", after all, is not the "nice guy", it's the ruthless killer! :o

Politics, whether it be feudal, bourgeoise, or bureaucratic, is neither "fair" nor "safe" and it has the universal property of corrupting all those who attempt to play at it.

Raegan may have been a "really nice guy" in his personal life -- people certainly say that about George W. Bush -- but as President, he was indeed a monstor.

That is, his instutitional role was one to effect mass murder and exploitation. Not because he was "evil" or a "sinner" or any other idealist crap, but because that's the material responsibility of the "office of President".

The very institutions of American bourgeois government are such that only those capable of truly horrendous acts can rise to positions of power.

The rest are "weeded out" by a very effective, very well-oiled, 230 year old state machine.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

so let me get this straight, America is a murderous machine, every president that has existed is a murderer and just because of our ideologies, the right wing, capitalism etc.. we are labeled as murderes in your eyes, even if we don't fire a shot..? lol :rolleyes:

lets see, how many people has Bill Gates killed LSD, wow i just noticed your name, :lol: LSD!!! ummm i give up lol hahahahaha

[RedSkvnk]

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected] 25 2006, 03:18 PM

I doubt it's that high, and even if they don't know who he is then perhaps they are stirring interest in Che himself and his cause by serving as walking billboards for it. And if you counted, the deaths Che is responsible for would be far less than the deaths Ronald Reagan was responsible for. Besides which Che was fighting for a worthy goal, while Reagan...
That's bullshit. Che has become a commodity. A shirt with his face has as much relevance as a Tommy Hilfiger. As far as stirring 'interest,' I'd like to see how many people go research every face they see on a shirt worn by some kid. :rolleyes:

[LSD]

so let me get this straight, America is a murderous machine, every president that has existed is a murderer

No, not every President, but certainly every imperialist one, so definitely every president over the past, say, century.

There are a couple of exceptions sure, and there has been a good deal of justifiable war (self-defense, non-imperialist war, etc...), but there are certain cases where there is no question and Ronald Raegan is one such case.


and just because of our ideologies, the right wing, capitalism etc.. we are labeled as murderes in your eyes, even if we don't fire a shot..? lol

It has nothing to do with "ideology", it has everything to do with action.

I have not, for instance, accused you of being a murderer. Nor have I similarly accused prominant rightists like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.

These individuals, while overt in their "right wing ideologies" are nonetheless not directly responsible for human death.

Ronald Raegan, however is. It doesn't matter if he "believed he was right" or if he thought "God commanded it", "ideology" is irrelevent.

Now, I was attempting to analyze why it is that each successive US President has engaged in horrendous behaviour. Being an historical matrerialist, I reject any idealist explanations and search for a rational empirical one.

That may have been to subtle for you and if so, I apologize. But again, I was not implying that the US or its government is "evil" or that holding certain views implicitly makes one a "murderer".

All I was contending was that the US bourgeois government is set-up to bennefit the American rulling class and that that set-up permiates all elements of state instititutions, including personel.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

definitely every president over the past, say, century :blink:

how is that? please explain?


There are a couple of exceptions sure

ohh god thank you lol, like who? Kennedy? i thought what Kennedy did with Cuba might be concidered as "monstrous" by many of you. :lol:

alright, i understand about the ideology, we agree on that fair enough...


Ronald Raegan, however is. It doesn't matter if he "believed he was right" or if he thought "God commanded it", "ideology" is irrelevent.

alright, fair enough, sure it's true it's irrelevant if he thinks it's the will of god, but what actions made him a murderer? did he order the gasing of people like Saddam did? did he implement a new "Social Revolution" which lead to the deaths of millions? so how is he a muderer? ohh why ? because he was in their side? because he was their friend because it was in the US's best interest at the time? wow so than i guess if my friend kills somebody that makes me a murderer too? :unsure:

[ColinH]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 27 2006, 11:10 PM
wow so than i guess if my friend kills somebody that makes me a murderer too? :unsure:
Well, if your friend is a brutal tyrant, and you gave your friend chemical weapons, and your friend used them on people... maybe that would make you an accomplice in a crazy world?

[Andy Bowden]

Reagan was objectively a murderer because he funded a Contra terrorist insurgency against a democratically elected Sandinista govt, which was praised by Oxfam for it's actions in fighting poverty.

Did Reagan act in the US's "best interests" - yes. He did. The point is the best interests of the USA directly contradict the interests of millions of others of people, from south Asia, to Chile, Nicaragua and the Middle East.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 28 2006, 10:44 AM
Comrade X was objectively a murderer because they participated in a violent rebelion against a democratically elected Labour govt, which was praised by Oxfam for it's actions in fighting poverty.

what? :P

[Andy Bowden]

Whats your point caller?

[England Expects]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 28 2006, 12:12 PM
Whats your point caller?
Were you at the game?

Not really making a point there.

Maybe I am, why condemn Reagan for indirectly "murdering" some people if you are in favour of a violent revolution?

[The Grey Blur]

"Bringitdownnow" is a joke account - he's obviously just trying to take the piss

Remember BlackStar? I'm certain they're the same member

[Andy Bowden]

Maybe I am, why condemn Reagan for indirectly "murdering" some people if you are in favour of a violent revolution?

I am in favour of a revolution yes, if possibly, peaceful. The difference between the two examples is that the Contras explicitly targeted civilians, whereas any genuine Socialist revolution would target the state.

And theres no "indirectly" about it - Reagan gave them the money, with which they needed to function with. He "indirectly" killed Nicaraguans the same way Bin Laden "indirectly" killed New Yorkers.

[RedSkvnk]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 28 2006, 10:51 AM

Maybe I am, why condemn Reagan for indirectly "murdering" some people if you are in favour of a violent revolution?

I am in favour of a revolution yes, if possibly, peaceful. The difference between the two examples is that the Contras explicitly targeted civilians, whereas any genuine Socialist revolution would target the state.

And theres no "indirectly" about it - Reagan gave them the money, with which they needed to function with. He "indirectly" killed Nicaraguans the same way Bin Laden "indirectly" killed New Yorkers.
What's the difference between civilians and the state in a democratic society? :huh:

[Oh-Dae-Su]

this is bogus, sure Chavez was elected "democratically", but it's in the US's best interest to get his anti-american ass out of the picture, and if the US gave support to a militia to get Chavez out of power it would be for the sole purpouse of doing that, GETTING HIM OUT, if the militia does atrocities of war, thats not our fault. So i guess if you like Michael Jackson and you buy his CD's your indirectly also an accomplice in his "child malestation"? :rolleyes: plus don't fucking compare Reagan to Bin Laden, oh my god the people here just leave me in awe, BIN LADEN WAS TARGETTING PEOPLE CIVILIANS, that was his main goal, he knew this was going to happen, he wasn't targetting a military base, he wasn't targetting anything but CIVILIANS, and Reagan like i said was just supporting a group who was in opposition to another group which Reagan opposed as well, and like i said whether the group he supported did some bad things thats the nature of war and of politics, Reagan probably opposed this but it was in the interest of 1 nation, the USA, and frankly thats the president's job...just like in Iraq, we sided with Iraq, yet Saddam Hussain was gassing the damn Kurds, we knew it was going on, and sure we should have done something to prevent it but if we told them "hey you know don't do that", it might have angered and dirupted our relationships...plus in that case everyone would be an acomplice, look at Cambodian genocide, look at the Rwandan genocide etc.. everyone knew it was going on, yet nobody did crap, so does that make every government an accomplice and a murderer?

plus the Sandinistas were just as bad as the Contras, so i guess that makes you all here murderes too, in fact the Sandinistas are suspected of genocide against ingidenous groups like the Miskitos, how about you all read about it....

[Andy Bowden]

plus the Sandinistas were just as bad as the Contras, so i guess that makes you all here murderes too, in fact the Sandinistas are suspected of genocide against ingidenous groups like the Miskitos, how about you all read about it....

The Sandinistas later signed an agreement with the Miskito indians over land rights. There were abuses commited against the Indians, but it was nothing on the scale of say, El Salvador, or under the Somoza Regime - who'se commanders were in charge of the Contras.


BIN LADEN WAS TARGETTING PEOPLE CIVILIANS

So were the Contras. Anyone from teachers, doctors, peasants who got in their way. And Reagan knew it, and funded them regardless.


this is bogus, sure Chavez was elected "democratically", but it's in the US's best interest to get his anti-american ass out of the picture, and if the US gave support to a militia to get Chavez out of power it would be for the sole purpouse of doing that, GETTING HIM OUT,

Ever thought that maybe theres more to life than the US's "interests"? Like the interests of the Venezuelan people to freely decide who represents them, and to be an independent country?



What's the difference between civilians and the state in a democratic society?

Not every civilian is involved with the army, police, judiciary and government.

[hassan monwar al-moudjahid]

actually you can make a case against EVERY US PRESIDENT IN HISTORY, as either being a slave-owner, native american slaughterer, or international mass-murderer. no president was free of this charge, either directly or indirectly. even good ol' bubba clinton who dropped a bomb on a clinic in sudan that destroyed most of the country's pharmicudical supplies.

yes reagan was involved in mass-murder, i.e. nicaragua, there is no use arguing over that, and he certainly marveled in economic advances, i.e. reaganomics. he was simply acting out the duty of president of the united states.

you simply cannot compare him to che. maybe you can compare reagan to osama bin laden, the fact that they "indirectly" killed civilians, but then again osama didnt believe those civilians were innocent because they represented america's capitalist empire. his other target was america's military might.

by the way reagan supported osama and the "mujahideen" in afghanistan against the soviets, and george bush SUPPLIED saddam with the very gas that killed the kurds. whether he knew how the gas was going to be used, no one knows. by george bush is a different story. to stay on topic, i do know most people only wear che now cuz its a "fad". the same way they wear scarface, who by the way would be prefered over che in right-wing circles.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 28 2006, 03:51 PM

Maybe I am, why condemn Reagan for indirectly "murdering" some people if you are in favour of a violent revolution?

I am in favour of a revolution yes, if possibly, peaceful. The difference between the two examples is that the Contras explicitly targeted civilians, whereas any genuine Socialist revolution would target the state.

And theres no "indirectly" about it - Reagan gave them the money, with which they needed to function with. He "indirectly" killed Nicaraguans the same way Bin Laden "indirectly" killed New Yorkers.
Sure, whatever you say.

You couldn't make this stuff up, round your way I think they'd call it "pish".

I'd resist any communist revolution, I'm a civilian yet I think I'd find myself up against the wall.

Only target the state . . . my ass.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by RedSkvnk+Apr 28 2006, 02:52 AM--> (RedSkvnk @ Apr 28 2006, 02:52 AM)
Fistful of [email protected] 25 2006, 03:18 PM

I doubt it's that high, and even if they don't know who he is then perhaps they are stirring interest in Che himself and his cause by serving as walking billboards for it. And if you counted, the deaths Che is responsible for would be far less than the deaths Ronald Reagan was responsible for. Besides which Che was fighting for a worthy goal, while Reagan...
That's bullshit. Che has become a commodity. A shirt with his face has as much relevance as a Tommy Hilfiger. As far as stirring 'interest,' I'd like to see how many people go research every face they see on a shirt worn by some kid. :rolleyes: [/b]
He has become commodified, but like I said unknowingly the people who were his face on their shirt are walking billboards for an alternative to the conformity of capitalism. Is everyone who sees it going to suddenly become a revolutionary? Obviously not, but it will definitely perk the interest of some people, and that's more than a good thing.

[Andy Bowden]

Sure, whatever you say.

You couldn't make this stuff up, round your way I think they'd call it "pish".

I'd resist any communist revolution, I'm a civilian yet I think I'd find myself up against the wall.

Only target the state . . . my ass.

Jeez....YKTMX never said you were that touchy :P

[England Expects]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 28 2006, 10:10 PM

Sure, whatever you say.

You couldn't make this stuff up, round your way I think they'd call it "pish".

I'd resist any communist revolution, I'm a civilian yet I think I'd find myself up against the wall.

Only target the state . . . my ass.

Jeez....YKTMX never said you were that touchy :P
He should know that I'm sensitive and highly strung.