Che Guevara

Leo Paciarotti wrote: Genocide???...dou you really know the meaning of genocide?...Genocide is what the US Goverment is doing in Irak, or what the Military Goverments did here in Argentina in the 70´s supported by the the US goverments by that time....and they were the same who sent che guevara get killed...get killed a person who was fighting for the equality of the peolpe...is that wrong?...

Unle Liam wrote:

Leo Paciarotti wrote: Hi, from argentina, where el che guevara is from...going back to the main topic in this thread, some people may don´t like Cuba and Fidel´s goverment, but what el Che did during the revolution was to try to give all the people the same opportunties as others...so, if that you think is crap, well you´d better start re consider you points views... leo.

Yes, Genocide across an entire continent. Fantastic!

Get your facts right sunshine.

Ok, let me get this straight. US (allegedly) killing thousands of people in Iraq, wrong. But "el Che" killing thousands of people across latin America, ok?

Roll Up Roll Up. We've got a new champion for stupidest NOOLer.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Leo Paciarotti wrote: Genocide???...dou you really know the meaning of genocide?...Genocide is what the US Goverment is doing in Irak, or what the Military Goverments did here in Argentina in the 70´s supported by the the US goverments by that time....and they were the same who sent che guevara get killed...get killed a person who was fighting for the equality of the peolpe...is that wrong?...

What about the Malvinas, ya cheeky feckers? No reason for bringing it up, but i haven't had a corned beef sandwich since 1982. Perhaps thats what's missing from my life.

What about Malvinas?...you tell me what about malvinas?...do you really know why was all about?....did you know that Malvinas are Argentinean islands stolen by her majesty´s army...did you know that?...that happened during the 19th century, and when we tried to get them back...what happened was thw war...I am against wars, i think that wasn´t the right way to get them back....but first what happened it was that the british Empire stole them as they did whith many atoher places in the world ansa started to call them "colonies"...you we are right!

"you we are right"

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Uncle Liam wrote:

Leo Paciarotti wrote: Genocide???...dou you really know the meaning of genocide?...Genocide is what the US Goverment is doing in Irak, or what the Military Goverments did here in Argentina in the 70´s supported by the the US goverments by that time....and they were the same who sent che guevara get killed...get killed a person who was fighting for the equality of the peolpe...is that wrong?...

Unle Liam wrote:

Leo Paciarotti wrote: Hi, from argentina, where el che guevara is from...going back to the main topic in this thread, some people may don´t like Cuba and Fidel´s goverment, but what el Che did during the revolution was to try to give all the people the same opportunties as others...so, if that you think is crap, well you´d better start re consider you points views... leo.

Yes, Genocide across an entire continent. Fantastic!

Get your facts right sunshine.

Ok, let me get this straight. US (allegedly) killing thousands of people in Iraq, wrong. But "el Che" killing thousands of people across latin America, ok?

Roll Up Roll Up. We've got a new champion for stupidest NOOLer.

No, of course is not right...but did you think or know why he started the revolution?...did you know how things were in Latin america during that period?...do you how it feels to be controlled by military govermentes and you don´t have the right to do nothing?...where there is no democracy?....do you know how does it feel?...did you know that all those military goverments in Latin Amercia were supported by the US goverments...and others were also supported by the british royals and goverments, as it was with chile?, when Mr Pinochet hepled the English during the Malvinas war and after too?....do you know how does it feel all that?...of course not... I love England, it is great country, actually i lived there some time ago...during the nineties i lived in Norwich and in London for a couple of months, and many times before and after i went on holidays to visit friends....so it does bother me that people like you talk or write about topics that you don´t actually don´t know o lived through?...the only think you know is what you read or been told... leo.

Uncle Liam wrote: We've got a new champion for stupidest NOOLer.

Just 'cos you're the existing champion, you don't get to pick the new one!

It doesn't matter who's historical right it is to own the Falklands, you just can't have foreigners putting flags all over your territory - it makes you looks bad in front of other countries.

And if we can get at that oil - all the more reason to be glad we hung on to them.

Leo Paciarotti wrote: ...the only think you know is what you read or been told...

Brilliant idea!

Let's send Liam to Cuba! He can experience it for himself and tell us all about it when he gets back.

We'll contribute anything we raise at AO Day towards the ticket

We'll get you a one way ticket and you can earn the money to fly home when you get there

Ah, now I understand. Just because I didnt live through something means I dont have the right to comment on it! Sorry, for a minute I lost myself a bit. And yes, i am totally aware that quite a few (not all, as you said) were supported by the US. Its called protecting ones own interests.

You seem to be under the impression that Che Guevara and his merry men turned Cuba intom some kind of paradise. This is of course, nonsense. Since the revolution, Castro has been a military dictator, and a quite brutal one at that. Your idol Che, is nothing less than an international terrorist (and if you want, go and check out a few definitions of terrorism and compare it with a few neutral biographies of Guevara) who is responsible for mass human rights violations across latin America, as well as Genocide in Cuba and Bolivia, amongst other places.

And going back to my first point, according to your profile, you are 31 years old, so the liklihood of you living through the Cuban Revolution is at best unlikely, and more realistically, impossible, unless of course, you are a bare faced liar.

Liam, will you bear my children?

If you'd asked me this 4 days ago, I would have said "Yes, of Course I would."

But, since your wild accusations at the start of this very thread, i am going to have to respectfully decline. :p

Uncle Liam wrote: ...i am going to have to respectfully...

Are you feeling okay, Liam?

Of course not.

The copious amounts of free booze last night has seen to that.

Uncle Liam wrote: If you'd asked me this 4 days ago, I would have said "Yes, of Course I would."

But, since your wild accusations at the start of this very thread, i am going to have to respectfully decline. :p

You still didn't answer my question from the beginning of the thread. Or maybe you did....

Uncle Liam wrote: mass human rights violations across latin America, as well as Genocide in Cuba and Bolivia, amongst other places.

Again with the "genocide"?

Does anybody understand the meaning of the word anymore?

From the Convention on Genocide:

genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Well i've always understood genocide to be mass murder of a particular group of people on the grounds of religion, ethnicity of political belief.

Uncle Liam wrote: Well i've always understood genocide to be mass murder of a particular group of people on the grounds of religion, ethnicity of political belief.

I edited above to include the definition from the Convention on Genocide. Religion or ethnicity, yes, that would qualify as genocide.

Do you have examples of Che's alleged genocidal actions?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote:

Leo Paciarotti wrote: Hi, from argentina, where el che guevara is from...going back to the main topic in this thread, some people may don´t like Cuba and Fidel´s goverment, but what el Che did during the revolution was to try to give all the people the same opportunties as others...so, if that you think is crap, well you´d better start re consider you points views... leo.

So, he didn't run political prisons and he didn't have people whacked????

You mean like W?

While my statement about che are proven facts, your assertions about the President are Democratic Underground/ Daily Kos fuled delusion.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: Well i've always understood genocide to be mass murder of a particular group of people on the grounds of religion, ethnicity of political belief.

I edited above to include the definition from the Convention on Genocide. Religion or ethnicity, yes, that would qualify as genocide.

Do you have examples of Che's alleged genocidal actions?

There is plenty of evidence documented In the Black Book of Communism

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote:

Leo Paciarotti wrote: Hi, from argentina, where el che guevara is from...going back to the main topic in this thread, some people may don´t like Cuba and Fidel´s goverment, but what el Che did during the revolution was to try to give all the people the same opportunties as others...so, if that you think is crap, well you´d better start re consider you points views... leo.

So, he didn't run political prisons and he didn't have people whacked????

You mean like W?

While my statement about che are proven facts, your assertions about the President are Democratic Underground/ Daily Kos fuled delusion.

There's no question that W is running a prison in, of all places, Cuba-- how's that for irony-- where people are denied the most basic of legal rights. There's no question that some of these people are not "combatatnts" or "terrorists." And yet they rot in jail.

There's no question that W is running "secret" prisons in Eastern Europe. There's no question that "extraordinary renditions" have transferred prisoners to countries where torture is legal. There's no question that W's government has argued strenuously for the authority to torture, even as they deny, to this day, that they torture. There's no question that W's government has argued that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to prisoners captured in its war without end.

There's no question that W is Commander in Chief of a military which has been "whacking" people under his orders since 9/11/01.

No question. Except in Jesusland.

Uncle Liam wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: Well i've always understood genocide to be mass murder of a particular group of people on the grounds of religion, ethnicity of political belief.

I edited above to include the definition from the Convention on Genocide. Religion or ethnicity, yes, that would qualify as genocide.

Do you have examples of Che's alleged genocidal actions?

There is plenty of evidence documented In the Black Book of Communism

Yeah, but humor me. Give us some examples of genocide so we don't all have to go out and buy the book and read it** before we know what you're referring to.

** Or was that your devious plan?

Well, the genocide that took place in the immediate years after the Cuban Revolution, in which Guevara either had people locked up in the political prisons, which he founded, or were indiscriminately murdered on his orders.

Ditto, in Bolivia. The battle that Guevara led which led to the indiscriminate killings of tens of thousands of people during the mid 60's just because they didnt support him.

And, moving away from genocide. There was the whole Congo thing in 1965, which was getting involved in a war he had no business in. Now whose supporters have criticised other people doing that before?

Uncle Liam wrote: Well, the genocide that took place in the immediate years after the Cuban Revolution, in which Guevara either had people locked up in the political prisons, which he founded, or were indiscriminately murdered on his orders.

Ditto, in Bolivia. The battle that Guevara led which led to the indiscriminate killings of tens of thousands of people during the mid 60's just because they didnt support him.

Were these killings based on nationality, ethnicity, or religion? Because if they were they based instead on opposition to his armed forces, then you'd have to say the UK and US armed forces currently in Iraq are also practicing genocide, in which case, W and his love slave are also genocidal murderers. Surely there must be more to genocide than merely killing large numbers of people? Something like targeting large numbers of people for their nationality, ethnicity, or religion?

And, moving away from genocide. There was the whole Congo thing in 1965, which was getting involved in a war he had no business in. Now whose supporters have criticised other people doing that before?

So the U.S. intervening in the Congo was acceptable, but when Che intervened to counter U.S. intervention, he had "no business" there? That's an interesting analysis. Care to elaborate?

I didnt say that! I just mentioned that guevara supporters are mainly the same people who oppose US intervention in things...

Uncle Liam wrote: I didnt say that! I just mentioned that guevara supporters are mainly the same people who oppose US intervention in things...

Well, I think it follows that if the U.S. is intervening to support a right wing agenda somewhere, that left wing "revolutionaries" might also intervene, and that it wouldn't necessarily be hypocritical to still oppose U.S. intervention, while supporting left-wing counter-intervention.

On the other hand, if one were to oppose U.S. intervention anywhere, but support left-wing intervention everywhere, that has the potential for hypocrisy: "Intervention is wrong! (except when we do it)", although it's not not necessarily hypocritical (spreading democracy, spreading socialism, etc.).

Isn't arguing about Guevara (a) just a bit passe, and (b) just a wee bit studenty, and not to mention (c) just a wee bit passe in a crap 80s-studenty way??

Liam????? Riiiiik??????

* i'll drink to all of this*

i never understood why people in my high school were walking around wearing che guevara t-shirts like he was some god or something. if he had killed half their family, i'm sure they wouldn't be running around with that fucker on their shirts. the guy is pretty much bacon.

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: Isn't arguing about Guevara (a) just a bit passe, and (b) just a wee bit studenty, and not to mention (c) just a wee bit passe in a crap 80s-studenty way??

Liam????? Riiiiik??????

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote:

Leo Paciarotti wrote: Hi, from argentina, where el che guevara is from...going back to the main topic in this thread, some people may don´t like Cuba and Fidel´s goverment, but what el Che did during the revolution was to try to give all the people the same opportunties as others...so, if that you think is crap, well you´d better start re consider you points views... leo.

So, he didn't run political prisons and he didn't have people whacked????

You mean like W?

While my statement about che are proven facts, your assertions about the President are Democratic Underground/ Daily Kos fuled delusion.

There's no question that W is running a prison in, of all places, Cuba-- how's that for irony-- where people are denied the most basic of legal rights. There's no question that some of these people are not "combatatnts" or "terrorists." And yet they rot in jail.

There's no question that W is running "secret" prisons in Eastern Europe. There's no question that "extraordinary renditions" have transferred prisoners to countries where torture is legal. There's no question that W's government has argued strenuously for the authority to torture, even as they deny, to this day, that they torture. There's no question that W's government has argued that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to prisoners captured in its war without end.

There's no question that W is Commander in Chief of a military which has been "whacking" people under his orders since 9/11/01.

No question. Except in Jesusland.

Club Gitmo is not a political prison. YOU don't know that each and every prisoner currently at Gitmo is not a combatant or terrorist.

If our Eastern friends have questions for terrorist in our capture, why should we not share them?

What "torture" has the government lobbied for? What "torture" is the government currently engaged in?

The Geneva Convention doe not apply to Gitmo. It's because the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members--as they demonstrated so horrifically on Sept. 11, 2001--violate the very core principle of the laws of war by targeting innocent civilians . While Taliban fighters had an initial claim to protection under the conventions (since Afghanistan signed the treaties), they lost POW status by failing to obey the standards of conduct for soldiers: wearing uniforms, a responsible command structure, and obeying the laws of war.

There is no question about this. Except in secular progressive-land.

Tex wrote: Club Gitmo is not a political prison.

True. But the irony of pointing in horror at --gasp!!-- political prisons in Cuba has seemed to escape your notice. Guantanamo isn't a political prison, but then it's not quite a penal prison either, is it? No, it's just a place where prisoners waste away without even the most basic of legal rights. Does that sound like the America you were born in? 'Cause it sure doesn't sound like the America I was born in...

YOU don't know that each and every prisoner currently at Gitmo is not a combatant or terrorist.

Nor do YOu know that any of them are terrorists or combatants. So putting aside what we don't PERSONALLY know, there have been some fairly convincing reports that at least some of the prisoners-- you know, those guys with no legal rights-- are neither enemy combatants or terrorists.

If our Eastern friends have questions for terrorist in our capture, why should we not share them?

Our "Eastern friends" in Poland have questions for Afghans in our capture? Or perhaps, our "Eastern friends" in Poland do our bidding because it suits their national interest?

What "torture" has the government lobbied for? What "torture" is the government currently engaged in?

I presume you've heard of the Attorney General? The Vice President? I presume you're not as dumb as you're playing now?

The Geneva Convention doe not apply to Gitmo. It's because the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members--as they demonstrated so horrifically on Sept. 11, 2001--violate the very core principle of the laws of war by targeting innocent civilians . While Taliban fighters had an initial claim to protection under the conventions (since Afghanistan signed the treaties), they lost POW status by failing to obey the standards of conduct for soldiers: wearing uniforms, a responsible command structure, and obeying the laws of war.

There is no question about this. Except in secular progressive-land.

AKA the civilized world.

Here we go again. Speaking of current politics, I need to vote early this weekend.