NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been reading alot about Ernesto Che Geurvara recently, and he seems like a pretty decent guy, someone who I really respect, but at the same time I'm wondering if I'm only getting the "hero story" side of him. So, I open this thread to anyone who accully knows about him (beyond just seeing The Motorcycle Diaries or reading about him in school) to educate me.

Hero of the people, couragous fighter against tyrany, man who faught for his ideals and cared about people and the common man, or over-hyped geurilla fighter and tyrant in his own right?

Please, if you make a claim, back it up with links to a credible source, or something like that, some sort of claim to knowledge of the subject. I don't want "he was bad because he was communist and killed people" or "I read in school he was a terrorist who hated America," or likewise I don't want "he was a great humanitarian who selflessly faught for the downtroden" without some sort of evidence.

I don't want this to be "he was this!" "no he did this!" "no you're wrong!," I'm looking for some real discussion with real evedence/reserch, so as to enlighten my self.

So, what do you know about Che?

This "hero of the people" also murdered the people who ideologically opposed him. He quite enthusiastically ran Castro's prisons and was responsible for the execution of very many political prisoners.

Che was a murderer. It was in the West that he took on iconic status, mainly young Americans who either didn't know or didn't care about his brutal repression.

http://www.neoliberalismo.com/Cuca0105.htm

I suspected as much......

VO, any link or such? You, I would take on word as knowledgable, but I'd really like to be absolutly sure of all facts. Specifily, the execution of those ideologically opposed to him.

I was under the impression that Cuba had little history of violent repression, beyond imprisonment.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-01.htm#P430_47544

I suspected as much......

VO, any link or such? You, I would take on word as knowledgable, but I'd really like to be absolutly sure of all facts. Specifily, the execution of those ideologically opposed to him.

I was under the impression that Cuba had little history of violent repression, beyond imprisonment.

From Wikipedia:

In 1959, Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959–1963, he oversaw the hasty trials and executions of many former Batista regime officials, including members of the BRAC secret police (some sources say 156 people, others estimate as many as 500). Poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, who was imprisoned at La Cabana, documented Guevara's particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of prisoners.

CIA reports from the time stated:

Guevara's first position in the new government was that of commander of La Cabana Fortress in Havana. There he had jurisdiction over the notorious "war criminals" trials, which allegedly resulted in the execution of 600 civilian and military officials. Able to arrest, try and execute anyone at all under the Revolutionary Code of Justice, he took a personal interest in the prosecutions of former members of Batista's Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities (BRAC), gaining possession of the BRAC files

EDIT: For the sources, you can just look him up on Wikipedia for that, but for some of the CIA info you can look here:

http://www.companeroche.com/index.php?id=103

Thank you, Globes R Us, for that first link. While I did not agree with some of it, I found it quite informative.

I'm going to bed now, as I have to get up at 5:30 tomarrow for work, but I will check out the other 2 tomarrow. Links for Human Rights Watch do carry alot of weight with me, and although I am more interested in Che directly then Cuba right now, I thank you for your diligence in this topic.

I can't say I'm surprised, but damn that sucks. O well. Back to Ghandi and Jesus as my political heros (fell free to rip Ghandi to shreds, by the way, if he, as well set up death camps and oppressed the peasentry)

His full biography:
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Che_Guevara

In 1959, Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959–1963, he oversaw the executions of hundreds of political prisoners and regime opponents (estimates range from 500 to 1700). Many individuals imprisoned at La Cabana, such as poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, allege that Guevara took particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of some prisoners.

I have been reading alot about Ernesto Che Geurvara recently, and he seems like a pretty decent guy, someone who I really respect, but at the same time I'm wondering if I'm only getting the "hero story" side of him. So, I open this thread to anyone who accully knows about him (beyond just seeing The Motorcycle Diaries or reading about him in school) to educate me.

Hero of the people, couragous fighter against tyrany, man who faught for his ideals and cared about people and the common man, or over-hyped geurilla fighter and tyrant in his own right?
I lived through the rise of Fidel, the fall of Truhillio ( Sp? ), the Cuban missle crisis, and the attempt by Che to incite revolution in several S. American countries. As an insurgent, Che was fair to medium, effective in inspiring those who followed him, not so effective in actual combat situations. As a strategist, Che pretty much sucked, picking the wrong times and places to instigate, failing to secure his support sources, and allowing counterinsurgency forces to cut him off from his putative local support. He totally failed to convince many villagers in the hinterlands of the rightness of his cause, a fatal error for any insurgency.

Che has enjoyed a certain post-mortum following among a select few in America, mostly disaffected and angst-ridden American teenagers. I tend to view Che as the poster child for teenage angst and lost causes.

I have been reading alot about Ernesto Che Geurvara recently, and he seems like a pretty decent guy, someone who I really respect, but at the same time I'm wondering if I'm only getting the "hero story" side of him. So, I open this thread to anyone who accully knows about him (beyond just seeing The Motorcycle Diaries or reading about him in school) to educate me.

Hero of the people, couragous fighter against tyrany, man who faught for his ideals and cared about people and the common man, or over-hyped geurilla fighter and tyrant in his own right?

Please, if you make a claim, back it up with links to a credible source, or something like that, some sort of claim to knowledge of the subject. I don't want "he was bad because he was communist and killed people" or "I read in school he was a terrorist who hated America," or likewise I don't want "he was a great humanitarian who selflessly faught for the downtroden" without some sort of evidence.

I don't want this to be "he was this!" "no he did this!" "no you're wrong!," I'm looking for some real discussion with real evedence/reserch, so as to enlighten my self.

So, what do you know about Che?

It would be difficult for me to say for certain, as I am no expert on Gueverra. I would have to refer to one of my friends who is probably the foremost expert on Marxism at my college for any real information.

That being said, I am under the impression that calling him a murderer would be far in excess of what he actually did, unless of course you cannot accept the legitemacy of a government that also happens to be communist. Simply put, most of the political prisoners that he executed were political prisoners because they had continued to fight even after the overthrow of the Batista regime and the institution of a new Communist government. If that's the case, then he's executing people guilty of treason, not murdering political dissidents.

Of course, I am not familiar with the details, and though I've spoken with my friend about it, he is the history major and would know more about it than I would. I'll have to bring up the matter with him.

It really depends on your point of view. He was a freedom fighter and revolutionary. But he was also ruthless in his methods and he didnt have nice things to say about blacks, jews, and gays. He was, like all people, neither entirely righteous nor entirely evil. He was a man, flawed like the rest of us.

I respect Ernesto Guevara because of his wisdom and courage. It is easy to give up your life for your own country,countless people have done that. Che gave up his life for the struggle of all oppressed peoples, not just his comrades. He had a global vision and saw humanity in general, latin america in specific as his own people. He wasnt a child of Argentina, he was a child of Latin America. In the history of Latin America, only one man rises beyond his level, the liberator Simon Bolivar.

I intend no offense to you, because I was once in a similar situation of assuming that the "hero story" as you put it was fairly unbiased, but do you now realize how overall incredibly foolish it is to idolise somebody that you don't know the history of? I mean, I could understand it for instances of extremely one-sided reports (like one of my personal favourites, St. Paschasia), but even in the most lovely-looking people, there are always flaws. Just look at Jean-Paul Marat, who was very much the Guevara of his time, so to speak....I mean, after the French Revolution, at the point in time that they were revolutionizing the calendar and ridding the country of the Church, they endorsed the ideaology that he was the single most important "Saint", and many argue that they tried to enforce the idea that he was the ONLY one.

Not that Guevara's idol-worship has gone that far in these times......but nearly, in the eyes of some.

Not that I thought I'd ever be quoting my Calc teacher (or any high school teacher, for that matter), but "It sure pays to do your homework, now doesn't it?" (Except my statement isn't made with a sneer.....)

.... In the history of Latin America, only one man rises beyond his level, the liberator Simon Bolivar.There not nearly as many young Latin Americans with T-Shirts of Bolivar...

Bolivar is a Latin America Icon, El-Che is a World class icon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara

Not an expert but as far as I know and what family members tell me of what he did(im cuban) I do not like the man. He supported and participated in the killing of political prisoners(yes they were only disidents). My grandfather told me about Castro and Guevera going into the Fiestone factory he worked at and takeing all the people they suspected to be pro-batista to la Cabana. He also said that very few of them ever made it back to the factory. After a brief run in with the government himself my grandfather and my grandmother along with my uncle fled Cuba on some of the last legal flights out of the country in 1960. Oh and from liveing in Miami I've heard my share of stories about Che killing civilians and stuff in S. America. Mind you all of this is word of mouth.

Hmm... It's very funny. The sources cited say that el Che saw to the execution (after revolutionary trials in which he took no part) of between 600 and 1700 political enemies (all of them also torturers, murderers, thieves and rapists, but pay no mind to that) and yet, when confronted with how could the US back Pinochet in Chile the standard answer is "he only killed 3000 political opponents" (often without a trial, thrown from a helicopter in the middle of the ocean and guilty of nothing more but having a different ideology, but, as I said, these are merely unimportant details); and that it was necessary to support murderous dictators to stop the spread of communism.

Double standard?

El Che has a very big following in Latin America and Africa, fought with very limited resources against governments propped up by the US and his ideological legacy lives to this day, in spite of Eutrusca's propaganda (take a stroll down the streets of Mexico City, San Salvador, La Paz, or Bogotá if you doubt me).

Not an expert but as far as I know and what family members tell me of what he did(im cuban) I do not like the man. He supported and participated in the killing of political prisoners(yes they were only disidents). My grandfather told me about Castro and Guevera going into the Fiestone factory he worked at and takeing all the people they suspected to be pro-batista to la Cabana. He also said that very few of them ever made it back to the factory. After a brief run in with the government himself my grandfather and my grandmother along with my uncle fled Cuba on some of the last legal flights out of the country in 1960.Yeah rigth...Batista was a democratic generous President loved by his people[/sarcasm]

just like Pinochet...

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-01.htm#P430_47544
Erm... you are aware that el Che left Cuba a few years before 1997, yes?

You are also aware that the main reason he left was because he disagreed with the way Castro was handling Cuba, right?

Erm... you are aware that el Che left Cuba a few years before 1997, yes?you are wasting you time these guys are brain washed...

they r convinced CIA sources are un-biased... :rolleyes:

There not nearly as many young Latin Americans with T-Shirts of Bolivar...

Bolivar is a Latin America Icon, El-Che is a World class icon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara
Although, ideologically, Bolívar is far above Guevara. He just happened to live at a time when the media wasn't as pervasive as it is now.

Isn't this the guy from the movie The Motorcycle Diaries?

Why can't he just be both?
is it *THAT* hard for people to settle in a grey area?

Thats because of the passage of time. Che is a more recent figure. You see more Malcolm X shirts than you do Abraham Lincoln shirts too, that doesnt mean that Malcolm X was the greater man or did more for minorities than Lincoln.define "greater man"

Although, ideologically, Bolívar is far above Guevara. He just happened to live at a time when the media wasn't as pervasive as it is now.other heros have made their mark on the world...long after CheGuevara was executed...
ex Mandela, Sandino, Arafat, etc

yet... El-CHE is still a bigger Icon.

other heros have made their mark on the world...long after CheGuevara was executed...
ex Mandela, Sandino, Arafat, etc

yet... El-CHE is still a bigger Icon.

Sandino died in 1934 when Che was only 6 years old. How do you figure this happened long after Che was executed?

Mandela was bigger than Che in the 80s and early 90s. But he is free now so he isnt so much of a martyr. Arafat isnt a martyr either. Che is. This probably accounts for it.

Sandino died in 1934 when Che was only 6 years old. How do you figure this happened long after Che was executed?
my mistake...

I meant the Leader of the Sandinista Revolution.

Isn't this the guy from the movie The Motorcycle Diaries?
yes

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40383000/jpg/_40383075_motorcycle_story203.jpg.jpg

yes

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40383000/jpg/_40383075_motorcycle_story203.jpg.jpg


Sounds like he was doing the wrong thing for the right reasons

Sounds like he was doing the wrong thing for the right reasons
What wrong things?

What wrong things?

The death penalty type stuff

I'm not real big on violence although to accomplish revolution I guess guns need to be involved eh?

The death penalty type stuff

I'm not real big on violence although to accomplish revolution I guess guns need to be involved eh?first and foremost: You cant accomplish a revolution without killing people.

second...you should always cross check with neutral sources...like European or Asian historians & bibliographers.



on this subject US and Cuban sources are not neutral....they are 90% propaganda.

first adn foremost: You cant accomplish a ravolution without killing people.

second...you should always cross check with neutral sources...like Europe or Asian sites.



on this subject US and Cuban sources are not neutral....they are 90% propaganda.


So then he killed people right? Like I said I'm not big on violence, but I admit that revolutions don't come peacefully. I applaud him if he didn't agree with harsh/deadly treatment of political prisoners. I don't know the truth because I wasn't there plus I really don't know anything about him beyond what was said in this thread and shown in teh movie. He seems like a good guy. Of course I would like to believe that everything he did was for the sake of good for all and only those that deserved punishment got it, but I take everything with a grain of salt.

Inprisioning and killing members of the secret police or those guilty of treason is one thing, but political dissidents is something else entirly. It seems there is some disagreement between posters here as to who was killed. Anyone have links as to who was killed, whether or not civilians were killed, whether stuff like what Philanchez discribed was true or not?

I'm just trying to get a more complete picture of Che's life

As an insurgent, Che was fair to medium, effective in inspiring those who followed him, not so effective in actual combat situations. As a strategist, Che pretty much sucked, picking the wrong times and places to instigate, failing to secure his support sources, and allowing counterinsurgency forces to cut him off from his putative local support. He totally failed to convince many villagers in the hinterlands of the rightness of his cause, a fatal error for any insurgency.

Yea, I know that's why he failed in Bolivia, he put too much emphasis on terrain and therefor set himself up far away from his civilian support base, and the moutain peasents had no real reason to support him.

I don't know what the deal with the defeat in Congo was about, I haven't reserched that quite as much, but I intend to.

One question, though, if he sucked as a stratigist, how did he make it so high in the Cuban gurilla army, and how was he so successful?

My personal thinking on him as a stratigist was that he tryed to use the successful Cuban model in other situations where the cercumstances were different.

One question, though, if he sucked as a stratigist, how did he make it so high in the Cuban gurilla army, and how was he so successful?

My personal thinking on him as a stratigist was that he tryed to use the successful Cuban model in other situations where the cercumstances were different.
That was partly it. Governments learn how to fight a guerrilla too, so if you can't adapt your strategy to those changing conditions, then you lose.

El Che is more recognized as a symbol of fight in spite of those circumstances. Even though he knew he was outgunned, outmanned, outfunded, he still went on to fight, himself at the front, for what he believed was right. Maybe he was too radical, I think he was, although not off the mark, but you have to admire conviction and courage like that.

... whether stuff like what Philanchez discribed was true or not?It is not true...its Propaganda from US sources.
I'm just trying to get a more complete picture of Che's lifethis is quite unbiased and fairly detailed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara

I lived through the rise of Fidel, the fall of Truhillio ( Sp? ), the Cuban missle crisis, and the attempt by Che to incite revolution in several S. American countries. As an insurgent, Che was fair to medium, effective in inspiring those who followed him, not so effective in actual combat situations. As a strategist, Che pretty much sucked, picking the wrong times and places to instigate, failing to secure his support sources, and allowing counterinsurgency forces to cut him off from his putative local support. He totally failed to convince many villagers in the hinterlands of the rightness of his cause, a fatal error for any insurgency.
.Yea, I know that's why he failed in Bolivia, he put too much emphasis on terrain and therefor set himself up far away from his civilian support base, and the moutain peasents had no real reason to support him.Thats was not why he Failed in Bolivia.

First: he was against very difficult Odds to begin with...then again insurgents are always underdogs. They are undermanned, underarmed, underpaid. (they are not paid most of the time).

Yet El-Che did overcome all of that before...

so what happened in Bolivia?

It was not the poor numbers, the dirty poor pay...or the poor weapons...

It was the POOR INFORMATION (INTELLIGENCE)...thats what defeated El-Che.

He had his flaws, but let's face, it socialism really doesn't have anyone great associated with it. Che is the closest thing to a hero the Left has.

It is not true...its Propaganda from US sources.

What is your source for knowledge on Che?

As to the Bolivia thing, he was captured because the peasents had no reason to hide him, and the Bolivians had the help of the CIA in finding and captureing him.

What did you mean by "bad info"?

What is your source for knowledge on Che?

As to the Bolivia thing, he was captured because the peasents had no reason to hide him, and the Bolivians had the help of the CIA in finding and captureing him.

What did you mean by "bad info"?

I'm not entirely sure about that, as I understood that he was quite popular with the Bolivian peasantry. That was part of the reason why they killed him so quickly and built a runway over his body: so no one could erect a marker or monument to him.

I've posted his biography. Here are official American documents regarding his death.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB5/

Thats was not why he Failed in Bolivia.

First: he was against very difficult Odds to begin with...then again insurgents are always underdogs. They are undermanned, underarmed, underpaid. (they are not paid most of the time).

Yet El-Che did overcome all of that before...

so what happened in Bolivia?

It was not the poor numbers, the dirty poor pay...or the poor weapons...

It was the POOR INFORMATION (INTELLIGENCE)...thats what defeated El-Che.

I don't agree about it being lack of intelligence. The Cubans and Russians didn't want him any more. He tried to foment rebellion in Bolivia and got caught by superior forces. He miscalculated yet again - his strong suit.

"Guevara's hope of fomenting revolution in Bolivia appears to have been predicated upon a number of misconceptions. He had expected to deal only with the country's military government. However, there was a U.S. presence in Bolivia. After the U.S. government learned of his location, CIA operatives were sent into Bolivia to aid the anti-insurrection effort. He had expected to deal with a poorly trained and equipped national army. Instead, the Bolivian Army was being trained by U.S. Army Special Forces advisors, including a recently organized elite battalion of Rangers trained in jungle warfare. Guevara had also not received the expected assistance and cooperation from the local dissidents when he undertook his journey. Moreover, Bolivia's Moscow-oriented Communist Party did not aid him in the insurrection.

Guevara and his associates found themselves hamstrung in Bolivia by the American aid and military trainers to the Bolivian government and a lack of assistance from his allies. In addition, the CIA also helped anti-Castro Cuban exiles set up interrogation houses for those Bolivians thought to be assisting Guevara and/or his guerrillas. Some were tortured for information.

The Bolivians were notified of the location of Guevara's guerrilla encampment by a deserter. On October 8, the encampment was encircled and Guevara was captured while leading a patrol in the vicinity of La Higuera. His surrender was offered after being wounded in the legs and having his rifle destroyed by a bullet. According to soldiers present at the capture, during the skirmish as soldiers approached Guevara he allegedly shouted, "Do not shoot! I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead." Barrientos ordered his execution immediately upon being informed of Guevara's capture. Guevara was executed; he was taken to an old schoolhouse and bound by his hands to a board. Che Guevara did have some last words before his death; he allegedly said to his executioner, "I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man." He was shot in the heart.

A CIA agent and veteran of the U.S. invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, Felix Rodriguez headed the hunt for Guevara in Bolivia. After hearing of Guevara's capture Rodriguez relayed the information to the CIA. Although Rodriguez despised Guevara for his involvement in the execution of several of his own family members, he noted how bravely Guevara accepted his fate after his initial cowardice. After the execution, Rodriguez took Guevara's Rolex watch, often proudly showing it to reporters during the ensuing years. Rodriguez had removed Guevara's hands to send to different parts of the world to verify his identity."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:kEInM2zPE4wJ:encycl.opentopia.com/term/Che_Guevara+che+guevara+killed+opponents&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Here's a link to an interview of Felix Rodriguez, interesting details about Guevara and CIA:

http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagmf026.php

BTW I do not have any links for this..its word from my granpa...so I do not mind if you think its not true...

What did you mean by "bad info"?
in the sense of bad intelligence...they wanted to make a revolution in SA...and Bolivia was not a good place to start...

the Guerrilla modus operandi was to take land from the rich terratenientes (landlords who basically enslaved the peasants) and give it to the poor peasants (robin-hood style)...usually fighting off and killing the oppressive Landlord "hombres de mano" (knights or death squads if you want)....

the effect was that most peasants(80% of the Pop) would back-up the Guerrilleros with food and shelter...and some young peasants would join the guerrilla...(robin-hood all the way)eventually the guerrilla would snowball to a bigger and more influent force...killing the bad guys and giving to the poor...

they would become the justice brokers in the farmlands...when the movement was big enough and popular enough they would give their endorsement to some political party...a "political arm"...they would win the election with t the votes of the young and the poor...at that point the Military would intervene and disallow the Guerrilleros party... full country side revolution struggle is declared...

But like I said Bolivia was the wrong country to start...El-Che was not aware that Bolivia had just begun a "reforma Agraria"...which took away some the bad lands from the rich Landlords and gave it to the peasants...really small pieces...But the peasants were very happy as they never owned land before...

The "Reforma Agraria" did cut the grass under the Guerrilleros feet...by the time they were trying to get out of Bolivia...they were caught...most peasant were cooperating with the Bolivian army and telling them the whereabout of the Guerrilleros.

eventually(years after El-Che was killed) the Reforma Agraria was a total failure...the pieces of land given to the peasants were not that good...and too small to be of agricultural use...except for some coca.

He had his flaws, but let's face, it socialism really doesn't have anyone great associated with it. Che is the closest thing to a hero the Left has.

So the best "hero" figure you can come up with is a guy who brutally tortured and murdered thousands, including nuns and priests and missionaries working with the people he supposedly was trying to "liberate"? A guy, when all is said and done, was little more than a homicidal, sociopathic puppet of the Soviets?

There are better to choose from. If not, you may want to reconsider your personal philosphies.

So the best "hero" figure you can come up with is a guy who brutally tortured and murdered thousands, including nuns and priests and missionaries working with the people he supposedly was trying to "liberate"? A guy, when all is said and done, was little more than a homicidal, sociopathic puppet of the Soviets?

There are better to choose from. If not, you may want to reconsider your personal philosphies.


psst, I'll let you in on something that shouldve been obvious. Letila is not speaking for communists or the left and probably isnt one him/herself ;).

Dude, read his posts. He may not be an accurate repressentative of the "left" (I hate those terms now), but he certainly loves to preach the good stuff of communism and anarchy.

He may be some little teenager who read a few pamphlets about the Communist Manifesto, but my point is still valid. If you can look at the whole Left movement and say that butcher is the best example of a human being under their defenition, its time for some serious introspective time.

Dude, read his posts. He may not be an accurate repressentative of the "left" (I hate those terms now), but he certainly loves to preach the good stuff of communism and anarchy.

He may be some little teenager who read a few pamphlets about the Communist Manifesto, but my point is still valid. If you can look at the whole Left movement and say that butcher is the best example of a human being under their defenition, its time for some serious introspective time.

No, if you can look at the whole 'left movement' (whatever that is) and say that a butcher is the best example, then what you need is to read up on your history so you can learn more about other leftist icons.

And so you can learn that Ernesto Guevara was not the butcher US propaganda made him out to be while you are at it.

I didn't say he was. In my first post in this thread, I say that there are better. I said if thats the best that other one can find etc etc

And if something is propoganda, is it automatically a lie? Are you telling me wasn't directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, a good portion of whom were innocent and missionaries trying to help the people down there?

you telling me wasn't directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, a good portion of whom were innocent and missionaries trying to help the people down there?

Thousands were not killed. Hundreds were killed after being put on trial for human rights abuses including torture and murder. This is a standard practice after toppling a dictatorial regime that you will see an example of soon when Saddam Hussein and his fellow torturers are brought to justice in Iraq. They recieved a trial and were allowed defense attourneys. Some were sentenced to death, others were exiled, and others were sentenced to long prison sentences. There were some executions with no trial involved, but these were overseen by Raul Castro, they were not part of the La Cabaña compound Che was in charge of. Even if we assume that the trials were unfair, you have exagerated the numbers tenfold. Hundreds were executed, not thousands.

Are you telling me wasn't directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, a good portion of whom were innocent and missionaries trying to help the people down there?That is 100% US propaganda.
And if something is propoganda, is it automatically a lie? Propaganda is meant do deform the truth...so its a Lie from the get go....

US propaganda about El-Che is good example of LIES.

Ocean Drive, what is your basis of knowledge about Che?

So the debate seems to come down to did he or did he not oversee the torture and executions of innocent civilians, or was it just the members of the old regime/treason committing peoples?

Any credible evedence one way or the other?

you are wasting you time these guys are brain washed...

second...you should always cross check with neutral sources...like European or Asian historians & bibliographers.

on this subject US and Cuban sources are not neutral....they are 90% propaganda.

It is not true...its Propaganda from US sources.

All of these claims and not one reference to back them up. The only reference you can provide on is Wikipedia, which spends one short paragraph talking about his days at la Cabana. Even in that short paragraph about his villainous side, it says that Guevara had a "particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of prisoners."



And for Katzistanza, HERE (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200507081316) is a good article from The New Republic that entails why I believe he was an evil individual. It is titled "Che Guevara: The Killing Machine" so it doesn't beat around the bush, but it is well researched and contains quotes from Che's own diaries and many other sources.

Ocean Drive, what is your basis of knowledge about Che?

Marxism Weekly.

So the debate seems to come down to did he or did he not oversee the torture and executions of innocent civilians, or was it just the members of the old regime/treason committing peoples?

Any credible evedence one way or the other?

Besides the accounts of people who were actually there? But no, their memories are just CIA lies.

Of course, any article that mentions the blood of innocents of Che's hands is just propoganda. The only reliable sources are the ones that paint him as only a freedom fighter who killed only those that were secret agents of the governments he tried to overthrow.

Why does a great humanitarian need to use force to have his will imposed in the first place? if he really was great wouldnt the people rally behind him without the need for a police force? Plus he fought against imperalism, but strangely lead several forces in many countries.....isnt that just another form of imperalism? He left his wife to run off with a younger woman...do humanitarians do that?

Ocean Drive, what is your basis of knowledge about Che?
I clearly stated that it was word from a family member and that I was not going to have proof...I also clearly stated that you dont have to take my word for it.

but If you are really interested in ElChe...you should at least buy and read his diary...I do not know if it is free on-line.

Plus he fought against imperalism, but strangely lead several forces in many countries.....isnt that just another form of imperalism? He left his wife to run off with a younger woman...do humanitarians do that?

Although I do not believe that he was a humanitarian, his various revolutionary attempts were not related by government, they were only related by links in ideology. And even though I don't know about Che's personal life, I don't know if his marital status really has that big of an impact on his historical status.

And for Katzistanza, HERE (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200507081316) is a good article from The New Republic that entails why I believe he was an evil individual. It is titled "Che Guevara: The Killing Machine" so it doesn't beat around the bush, but it is well researched and contains quotes from Che's own diaries and many other sources.
Wow! The New Republic, a totally unbiased and 100% objective source. From the title on down you can see that this is absolutely balanced stuff. :rolleyes:

By far the best documented and unbiased biography on el Che that I have read is "Ernesto Guevara, alias El Che" by Mexican journalist Paco Ignacio Taibo II. It's not pro Che or pro Cuba, it tries to find out who the man behind the icon was. Read that.

The only reference you can provide on is Wikipedia, which spends one short paragraph talking about his days at la Cabana. Even in that short paragraph about his villainous side, it says that Guevara had a "particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of prisoners."thas what Armando Valladares says...but that one man ...several other men have witnesed to the good morals of El_Che

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara

here is more on "sour grapes" Armando Valladares: :gundge:

http://www.disidenteuniversal.org/05archivo/disidente10_04.html

http://www.galiciainformacion.com/revistadeprensa/articulos/revista_002.htm

http://www.legrandsoir.info/article.php3?id_article=2017

if you cant read languages use www.altavista.com translator

Javier Arzuaga, the Basque chaplain who gave comfort to those sentenced to die and personally witnessed dozens of executions, spoke to me recently from his home in Puerto Rico. A former Catholic priest, now seventy-five, who describes himself as "closer to Leonardo Boff and Liberation Theology than to the former Cardinal Ratzinger," he recalls that "there were about eight hundred prisoners in a space fit for no more than three hundred: former Batista military and police personnel, some journalists, a few businessmen and merchants. The revolutionary tribunal was made of militiamen. Che Guevara presided over the appellate court. He never overturned a sentence. I would visit those on death row at the galera de la muerte. A rumor went around that I hypnotized prisoners because many remained calm, so Che ordered that I be present at the executions. After I left in May, they executed many more, but I personally witnessed fifty-five executions. There was an American, Herman Marks, apparently a former convict. We called him "the butcher" because he enjoyed giving the order to shoot. I pleaded many times with Che on behalf of prisoners. I remember especially the case of Ariel Lima, a young boy. Che did not budge. Nor did Fidel, whom I visited. I became so traumatized that at the end of May 1959 I was ordered to leave the parish of Casa Blanca, where La Cabaña was located and where I had held Mass for three years. I went to Mexico for treatment. The day I left, Che told me we had both tried to bring one another to each other's side and had failed. His last words were: "When we take our masks off, we will be enemies."

The highlight is mine. What threat to the revolution did that boy present?

There is no doubt of his atrocities. You apologists need to move on to justifying it. Maybe those nuns would have one day said "You know, Capitalism doesn't totally suck".

Why does a great humanitarian need to use force to have his will imposed in the first place? if he really was great wouldnt the people rally behind him without the need for a police force? Plus he fought against imperalism, but strangely lead several forces in many countries.....isnt that just another form of imperalism? He left his wife to run off with a younger woman...do humanitarians do that?
He wasn't a humanitarian. I don't think he or anyone who knows about him has ever claimed that. He certainly was very radical in his fight against what he saw as imperialism, whether it came from the US or the USSR. He led forces in several countries, but not at the same time. He didn't run off with another woman. He left his first wife (who he met in Guatemala and married in Mexico) to go to Cuba to fight there. They both knew they probably wouldn't see each other again (although they did) and divorced later. Meanwhile, in Cuba he met a revolutionary woman who became her lover. That's hardly running off with another woman. He cared for her and their daughter after the victory of the Cuban revolution.

The highlight is mine.
the highlight may be yours...but thats not your Propaganda...that was copy pasted from some Bushite web site.

The highlight is mine. What threat to the revolution did that boy present?
Who knows, the article doesn't say (what a surprise!), could he have been a murderer at that young age? could he have been one of Batista's henchmen? Could be, the article is not clear about that.

Che never overturned a sentence, for him the verdict of the revolutionary court was enough, and he never hesitated to carry out the executions. That much is true.

What do you think will happen to followers of Saddam Hussein? What happened to Nazi followers? This is not worse than that. No doubt some innocents were wrongly executed, that's always going to be very difficult to avoid, especially after the confusion of war and dictatorship.

That's why military justice is to justice what military music is to music.

There is no doubt of his atrocities. You apologists need to move on to justifying it. Maybe those nuns would have one day said "You know, Capitalism doesn't totally suck".
You haven't given a source for the nuns or the priests.

Wow! The New Republic, a totally unbiased and 100% objective source. From the title on down you can see that this is absolutely balanced stuff. :rolleyes:

By far the best documented and unbiased biography on el Che that I have read is "Ernesto Guevara, alias El Che" by Mexican journalist Paco Ignacio Taibo II. It's not pro Che or pro Cuba, it tries to find out who the man behind the icon was. Read that.

You can either read the article and deny its points or sources, or you can choose to dismiss based on your opinion of the magazine it was written for. I am unhappy to see you took the easy route.

Maybe you can use that unbiased biography to cast some doubt on the authenticity of the sources relied on in that article.

here is more on "sour grapes" Armando Valladares: :gundge:

http://www.disidenteuniversal.org/05archivo/disidente10_04.html

http://www.galiciainformacion.com/revistadeprensa/articulos/revista_002.htm

http://www.legrandsoir.info/article.php3?id_article=2017

if you cant read languages use www.altavista.com translator

Armando Valladares was a poet who was imprisoned for 22 years for opposing the communist takeover of Cuba. I think the "sour grapes" are understandable.

As for the articles, they are not translated well by altavista.

You can either read the article and deny its points or sources, or you can choose to dismiss based on your opinion of the magazine it was written for. I am unhappy to see you took the easy route.

Maybe you can use that unbiased biography to cast some doubt on the authenticity of the sources relied on in that article.
What sources? About half of it is hearsay and the other half are things already known told in a very biased way. Perhaps you could read more than one source, a documented one preferably, instead of rellying on publications and articles that already conform to your thinking.

Have you read that book yet?

What sources? About half of it is hearsay and the other half are things already known told in a very biased way. Perhaps you could read more than one source, a documented one preferably, instead of rellying on publications and articles that already conform to your thinking.

OK, you don't like the article. I do wish you would point out where the accounts are faulty.

Have you read that book yet?

No, and I doubt that I will.



I do have two questions for you. Do you refute that Guevara was a violent man who did not have a problem with the violent repression of dissidents and opponents? Can you name anything that Che accomplished that turned out to be good overall?

EDIT: Other than being the inspiration for this shirt:

http://www.coven.net/che/storeimages/T37.jpg

Oh, the capitalists win everytime.

I do have two questions for you. Do you refute that Guevara was a violent man.
he was a warrior of the revolution...he was a leader of the revolution...

the Revolution is violent...so he was violent.

he executed Batista assassins and torturers...

I would have executed them too.

The Chilean Judges do not have the Guts to send Pinochet to Prison...El Che would have executed him...thats why he is El-Che...the larger than life icon.

and long after the names of those pussy Chilean Judges are Forgotten...the name of El-Che will still be larger than life...

...long after your name is forgotten.

he executed Batista assassins and torturers...

I have yet to see any source that says that the executions he oversaw at la Cabana were restricted to assassins and torturers.

...long after your name is forgotten.

He will disappear into history books before I am dead, which is more than I will say for myself (He is better known than Brad Potts, that's really saying something). But he will be overtaken by another fad and will be remembered as one of Castro's main men in the Communist takeover of Cuba.

Now the real strong violent men like Stalin and Mao, they have staying power.

the highlight may be yours...but thats not your Propaganda...that was copy pasted from some Bushite web site.

You're right, its from the article VO posted. You just dismiss it as propoganda and lies without ever bothering to at least look at it. How exactly can you hope to have an intelligent discussion when you won't even look at the other side's sources and address their points?

Who knows, the article doesn't say (what a surprise!), could he have been a murderer at that young age? could he have been one of Batista's henchmen? Could be, the article is not clear about that.

What kind of henchman can a preteen boy make? Seriously, was Che that paranoid? Or was he just the bloodthirsty lunatic any educated person can see him for?

Che never overturned a sentence, for him the verdict of the revolutionary court was enough, and he never hesitated to carry out the executions. That much is true.

Then why was he even on that panel? If that was his attitude, then it was a kangaroo court and a sham.

What do you think will happen to followers of Saddam Hussein? What happened to Nazi followers?

Do you have any idea what kind of research and debate is happening for Hussien's tral? How long was it before Milosovic was sentenced? How long did Nuremburg go on for?

And none of those were summary executions, like many of Che's victims were.

This is not worse than that.

It is. Light years of a difference.

No doubt some innocents were wrongly executed, that's always going to be very difficult to avoid, especially after the confusion of war and dictatorship.

Oh, I see, omlettes and eggs.

That's why military justice is to justice what military music is to music.

WHAT?!?! Do you know just how thourough and complicated the United States Military Uniform Code of Justice is? They make damn sure they don't convict (or God forbid, execute) the wrong man or woman.

Do you have a clue as to how complicated an international war crimes court is?


You haven't given a source for the nuns or the priests.

Would you care? Or would I be wasting my time just so you can do the internet equivelent putting your fingers in your ears and runnning around screaming "PROPOGANDA AND LIES! PROPOGANDA AND LIES!" ?

and long after the names of those pussy Chilean Judges are Forgotten...the name of El-Che will still be larger than life...

I think its pretty safe to say Hitler will be long remembered, too.

Genghis Khan's been pretty resilient.

OK, you don't like the article. I do wish you would point out where the accounts are faulty.
I never said the accounts are faulty, or factually wrong, but the bias and tone of the article, providing no context for the accounts or providing any more explanation is what doesn't make its conclusion credible.

It's like a commercial, they make them so that you will think about the product what the makers of the commercial want you to think. Unless you compare and look for neutral and even opposite sources of information you won't have the full picture.

No, and I doubt that I will.
And yet I have to read and comment on what you present. Hardly seems fair.

I do have two questions for you. Do you refute that Guevara was a violent man who did not have a problem with the violent repression of dissidents and opponents? Can you name anything that Che accomplished that turned out to be good overall?
I don't. I don't think I have ever said he was a pacifist or anything like the sort. He certainly was too radical, had no qualms about seeing anyone who didn't think like he did as an enemy and unwilling to compromise. Towards the end he certainly was too full of himself. These attitudes contributed to isolate him from his supporters who would rather see him leave to start another revolution than having him too close.

I don't agree either with his ideology or his methods. But he wasn't a butcherer either. He would repress those that he saw as opponents, but he was also extremely generous with what he thought of as his base, the downtrodden and hopeless.

I think that the good thing he left overall was making the people realize that they can fight for what's right against a stronger enemy, and he also brought the plight of the third world to the attention of the people in the first. For the poorest of the poor he was hope and inspiration.

What kind of henchman can a preteen boy make? Seriously, was Che that paranoid? Or was he just the bloodthirsty lunatic any educated person can see him for?
How do you know exactly how old the boy was. All he says in the article is "a young boy". Was he five? Was he 14? He could have been old enough to pick up a gun, or throw a grenade for all we know.

Then why was he even on that panel? If that was his attitude, then it was a kangaroo court and a sham.
With this I agree. Maybe he was put on that panel because Fidel knew he wouldn't waver, and he wanted to see that opposition disappear. Still, take into account that he didn't originally condemn the people to dead, the original court did.

Do you have any idea what kind of research and debate is happening for Hussien's tral? How long was it before Milosovic was sentenced? How long did Nuremburg go on for?
And yet, is it being carried out by neutral parties? Is there an overseeing international body making sure that the research is being done properly? Perhaps it is being done properly, some of it sure is. But, nevertheless, fairness is not assured.

And none of those were summary executions, like many of Che's victims were.
It is. Light years of a difference.
Many of the Che's executions happened in the battlefield. He wouldn't have been the first military commander faced with the need to apply swift justice.

WHAT?!?! Do you know just how thourough and complicated the United States Military Uniform Code of Justice is? They make damn sure they don't convict (or God forbid, execute) the wrong man or woman.
Do you have a clue as to how complicated an international war crimes court is?

And yet they make mistakes, don't they? And yet there's Gitmo, where justice has been thrown out of the window in the name of national security. And yet there are trials of revenge in many parts of the world. It's going to happen, this doesn't necessarily make the people doing these things evil, it's part of the insanity of war. I don't think the guards in Abu Ghraib are evil, but war is hell, and hell is hard on people.

Would you care? Or would I be wasting my time just so you can do the internet equivelent putting your fingers in your ears and runnning around screaming "PROPOGANDA AND LIES! PROPOGANDA AND LIES!" ?
Of course I'd care. At least enough to read it and try to verify. If I'm not convinced I'll let you know. What more do you want? Bow down to you and accept anything you say as pure unadulterated truth? Sorry, I won't do that.

Still, take into account that he didn't originally condemn the people to dead, the original court did.

Well, based on how the appeal process was set up, I don't think the trials were all that fair.

And yet, is it being carried out by neutral parties? Is there an overseeing international body making sure that the research is being done properly? Perhaps it is being done properly, some of it sure is. But, nevertheless, fairness is not assured.

Yes, there is an international body overlooking the trial.

Of course, fairness cannot be guarenteed. Human beings are involved. The same way you can't guarentee any of your information is 100% accurate. In fact, we've pointing out holes in it this whole topic.

Many of the Che's executions happened in the battlefield. He wouldn't have been the first military commander faced with the need to apply swift justice.

So, someone else does it its ok? I'll try that. "Your honor, I know I shot up that office full of people, but hell, people have done worse. Why get on my ass?"

And yet they make mistakes, don't they?

Such as? I bet you don't know the last time an American soldier was executed by a military tribunal.


And yet there's Gitmo, where justice has been thrown out of the window in the name of national security.

Yes, that is certainly a legal grey area. But, its not La Cabana or any of those other concentration camps Che oversaw, now is it? How many executions have happened at Camp X-Ray?

Of course I'd care. At least enough to read it and try to verify. If I'm not convinced I'll let you know. What more do you want? Bow down to you and accept anything you say as pure unadulterated truth? Sorry, I won't do that.

So you read the article VO linked to? It has personal accounts AND EXCERPTS FROM CHE'S JOURNALS. Hows that for a source?

Hmm... It's very funny. The sources cited say that el Che saw to the execution (after revolutionary trials in which he took no part) of between 600 and 1700 political enemies (all of them also torturers, murderers, thieves and rapists, but pay no mind to that) and yet, when confronted with how could the US back Pinochet in Chile the standard answer is "he only killed 3000 political opponents" (often without a trial, thrown from a helicopter in the middle of the ocean and guilty of nothing more but having a different ideology, but, as I said, these are merely unimportant details); and that it was necessary to support murderous dictators to stop the spread of communism.

Double standard?


Well yes...the people on the 'other side' must be flawless. That means not using the same tactics as your allies.

my mistake...

I meant the Leader of the Sandinista Revolution.

The Sandinistas who castrated men and stuffed their genitals in their mouths, burned people alive, shot and killed toddlers, gouged out peoples' eyeballs, decapitated people, cut open pregnant women and pulled their fetuses out, cut out peoples' hearts while they were still alive, robbed banks, kidnapped people, etc?

Those Sandinistas?

Why does a great humanitarian need to use force to have his will imposed in the first place? if he really was great wouldnt the people rally behind him without the need for a police force? Plus he fought against imperalism, but strangely lead several forces in many countries.....isnt that just another form of imperalism? He left his wife to run off with a younger woman...do humanitarians do that?
Che was never a pacifist. I think you're confused. He was a revolutionary. That means he used violent revolution to achieve his goals. No hypocrisy there. He did just that.

He used the same tactics used by the people whom he fought against.

Why did he fight them? BECAUSE THEY USED THOSE TACTICS!

Thats the hypocrasy.

The Sandinistas who castrated men and stuffed their genitals in their mouths, burned people alive, shot and killed toddlers, gouged out peoples' eyeballs, decapitated people, cut open pregnant women and pulled their fetuses out, cut out peoples' hearts while they were still alive, robbed banks, kidnapped people, etc?

Those Sandinistas?
No, actually that would be the people the Sandanistas were fighting. The Somozas' thugs, the Contras. In fact, your list seems to be pulled from this page, but with the names changed. Convenient that: http://www.doublestandards.org/wakeup1.html

Witness For Peace, an American Protestant watchdog body, collected a list of Contra atrocities in one year, which included murder, the rape of two girls in their homes, torture of men, maiming of children, cutting off arms, cutting out tongues, gouging out eyes, castration, bayoneting pregnant women in the stomach, amputating the genitals of people of both sexes, gouging out eyes, scraping the skin off the face, pouring acid on the face, breaking the toes and fingers of an 18 year old boy, and summary executions. These were the people Ronald Reagan called "freedom fighters" and "the moral equal of our founding fathers."


http://wais.stanford.edu/Nicaragua/nicaragua_landmines.html

The Sandanistas were not innocent of atrocities, but they did not perpetrate them near to the extent the Contras did. Yet the US actively supported the Contras over the Sandanistas...interesting...I guess when your allies do these things, it's ok?

There IS no unbiased telling of Che's tale. Either you support the use of violence in revolution, if you feel the ends justify the means, or you don't. However, many of those who DON'T somehow manage to support other dictators such as Pinochet, Trujillo, Somoza et al because it 'saved Latin America from communism' or other such arguments. And many of those who really, really hate Che and Castro belong to families who lost money and property during the revolution. Or just hate 'communists' period.

No, actually that would be the people the Sandanistas were fighting. The Somozas' thugs, the Contras. In fact, your list seems to be pulled from this page, but with the names changed. Convenient that: http://www.doublestandards.org/wakeup1.html




http://wais.stanford.edu/Nicaragua/nicaragua_landmines.html

The Sandanistas were not innocent of atrocities, but they did not perpetrate them near to the extent the Contras did. Yet the US actively supported the Contras over the Sandanistas...interesting...I guess when your allies do these things, it's ok?

Bullshit, the Contras had nothing to do with Somoza. And yes, the Sandinistas did perpetrate atrocities to the extent of the Contras. Read, for example, the February 26, 1980 (I think that's the date, I'll go check) Congressional Record, which is full of testimony given by Nicaraguans about atrocities committed by the Sandinistas.

And just so you know, I hate the Contras.

Yet the US actively supported the Contras over the Sandanistas...interesting...I guess when your allies do these things, it's ok?

Carter supported the Sandinistas. He is largely responsible for their victory. And after their victory, sanctions against Nicaragua were lifted, and the new regime was provided 75 million dollars in U.S. aid.

And speaking of double-standards, it never ceases to amaze me how the Left hates Pinochet for killing 3,000 people in his 17 year reign but love the Sandinistas, who killed as many if not more people in their first year of power alone.

Bullshit, the Contras had nothing to do with Somoza. And yes, the Sandinistas did perpetrate atrocities to the extent of the Contras. Read, for example, the February 26, 1980 (I think that's the date, I'll go check) Congressional Record, which is full of testimony given by Nicaraguans about atrocities committed by the Sandinistas.
Are you seriously going to try to say the Sandinistas committed as many atrocities as the Contras?

[url= http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0507-26.htm]False.[/QUOTE]

James Steele was recently featured in a New York Times Magazine story as a top adviser to Iraq's "most fearsome counterinsurgency force," an outfit called the Special Police Commandos that numbers about 5000 troops. The article, by Peter Maass, noted that Steele "honed his tactics leading a Special Forces mission in El Salvador during that country's brutal civil war in the 1980s." And, as Maass reminded his readers, that civil war resulted in the deaths of 70,000 people, mostly civilians, and "[m]ost of the killing and torturing was done by the army and right-wing death squads affiliated with it." The army that did all that killing in El Salvador was supported by the United States and US military officials such as Steele, who was head of the US military assistance group in El Salvador for two years in the mid-1980s. (A 1993 UN truth commission, which examined 22,000 atrocities that occurred during the twelve-year civil war in El Salvador, attributed 85 percent of the abuses to the US-backed El Salvador military and its death-squad allies.)

This is El Salvador...I'm still looking for Nicaragua...though many of the tactics and even troops in El Salvador were also used in Nicaragua.

You're right though...the Contras had everything to do with the US.

Are you seriously going to try to say the Sandinistas committed as many atrocities as the Contras?

[url= http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0507-26.htm]False.



You're right though...the Contras had everything to do with the US.[/QUOTE]

Wrong country. The Contras were in Nicaragua, not El Salvador.

Wrong country. The Contras were in Nicaragua, not El Salvador.
I am getting a bit muddled, sorry...but the name Contras (usually meaning the ones in Nicaragua) is also used to talk about the US-backed forces in El Salvador and Honduras.

Ah. Here ( http://www.doublestandards.org/wakeup1.html) we are:


By the mid-1980s, Reagan's dirty war against Nicaragua had caused 14,000 casualties. Apart from soldiers and civilian militia defending the government, those injured by the Contra attacks included teachers, health workers, local government officials, technicians, school-children, church workers, peasants and other innocent civilians. The number of children and adolescents killed exceeded 3,000 and more than 6,000 children had been turned into war orphans.

The Nicaraguan government announced in November 1984 that since 1981 the Contras had assassinated 910 state officials. In just over four years, the CIA-backed mercenaries had attacked nearly 100 civilian communities and caused the displacement of over 150,000 people from their homes and farms. Bridges, port facilities, granaries, water and oil deposits, electrical power stations, telephone lines, saw mills, health centres, schools and dams were all destroyed or damaged.

You're going to have to provide some sources (that we can all access) if you want anyone to believe the Sandinistas did AS MUCH or more than the Contras.

Ah. Here ( http://www.doublestandards.org/wakeup1.html) we are:




You're going to have to provide some sources (that we can all access) if you want anyone to believe the Sandinistas did AS MUCH or more than the Contras.

I'm not sure who did more in terms of death toll, but in terms of atrocities, they were about equal.

And speaking of double-standards, it never ceases to amaze me how the Left hates Pinochet for killing 3,000 people in his 17 year reign but love the Sandinistas, who killed as many if not more people in their first year of power alone.
I guess the Left, much like the Right chooses the side that they agree with to support. The Right supported Pinochet because they thought him a better alternative to Salvador Allende. The Left supported the Sandinistas because they seemed a better alternative to Somoza.

To put my personal view into this, I don't support any group that uses violence against civilians. I support the right of people to resist oppression, but not at the cost of becoming oppressors themselves.

I'm not sure who did more in terms of death toll, but in terms of atrocities, they were about equal.
Equal in moral currency? Equal in numbers? Equal in levels of atrocities? What? You can't just say equal, no proof, and leave it at that. Anything I've read, or been told by my godmother, who was a nun RAPED BY CONTRAS has indicated that the Contra forces, in an attempt to terrorise civilians supporters of the Sandinistas were MUCH WORSE. As has been pointed out before...popular movements don't stay popular when they start killing their support base.

And are you talking about the Sandinistas during or post revolution? Even post-revolution, they did not commit the atrocities the Contras had.

I'm not saying they were innocent of evil acts. But I have seen nothing to indicate they were EQUAL to the Contras in this respect.

To put my personal view into this, I don't support any group that uses violence against civilians. I support the right of people to resist oppression, but not at the cost of becoming oppressors themselves.

I feel the same way.

I feel the same way.
Then I think we can both [/hijack] :D

Equal in moral currency? Equal in numbers? Equal in levels of atrocities? What? You can't just say equal, no proof, and leave it at that. Anything I've read, or been told by my godmother, who was a nun RAPED BY CONTRAS has indicated that the Contra forces, in an attempt to terrorise civilians supporters of the Sandinistas were MUCH WORSE. As has been pointed out before...popular movements don't stay popular when they start killing their support base.

And are you talking about the Sandinistas during or post revolution? Even post-revolution, they did not commit the atrocities the Contras had.

I'm not saying they were innocent of evil acts. But I have seen nothing to indicate they were EQUAL to the Contras in this respect.

Equal in level of atrocities. Both raped, both gouged out eyeballs, both slaughtered children, both maimed and killed innocent people, etc.

I don't. I don't think I have ever said he was a pacifist or anything like the sort. He certainly was too radical, had no qualms about seeing anyone who didn't think like he did as an enemy and unwilling to compromise. Towards the end he certainly was too full of himself. These attitudes contributed to isolate him from his supporters who would rather see him leave to start another revolution than having him too close.

I don't agree either with his ideology or his methods. But he wasn't a butcherer either. He would repress those that he saw as opponents, but he was also extremely generous with what he thought of as his base, the downtrodden and hopeless.

I think that the good thing he left overall was making the people realize that they can fight for what's right against a stronger enemy, and he also brought the plight of the third world to the attention of the people in the first. For the poorest of the poor he was hope and inspiration.

Well hell, if this where our point of difference is, lets wipe them away. First off, I wouldn't be quick to call him a butcher, I just called him a murderer because I thought much of his actions after the Communist takeover of Cuba were unjustified. And you are correct, he was very sympathetic and generous to the people he saw as his base, it showed in his writings and the recordings of some of his advice to Castro.

I just am unnerved by the amount of idolization someone who did so much work to oppress people is getting, especially in the name of fighting oppression. I don't think he was truly a good man, and I don't think he accomplished all that much.

I just am unnerved by the amount of idolization someone who did so much work to oppress people is getting, especially in the name of fighting oppression. I don't think he was truly a good man, and I don't think he accomplished all that much.
Yes, but he dies before he could really become oppressive in an institutional manner. Had he stuck around, no one would be idolising him much. Just like JFK...cripes...if only they hadn't killed him so he could've faded into mediocrity...

Che believed in what he did, and died before he could become too cynical or change his views...which is why people love him. He is the eternal revolutionary because we never saw him become a bureaucrat.

He will disappear into history books before I am dead.and..you planning to live for...how many centuries?

Genghis Khan's been pretty resilient.yes they are big names...we are insignificant compared to them.

The Sandinistas who castrated men and stuffed their genitals in their mouths, burned people alive, shot and killed toddlers, gouged out peoples' eyeballs, decapitated people, cut open pregnant women and pulled their fetuses out, cut out peoples' hearts while they were still alive, robbed banks, kidnapped people, etc?

Those Sandinistas?LOL ...more US Propaganda...AKA NeoCon Propaganda.

And just so you know, I hate the Contras.
I dont care...your are still a pawn of Bushite propaganda.

LOL ...more US Propaganda

Tell that to some of my Nicaraguan friends whose family members were killed by the Sandinistas and they'll be more than happy to beat the living shit out of you.

I dont care...your are still a pawn of Bushite propaganda.

You're still a flaming moron.

Tell that to some of my Nicaraguan friends whose family members were killed by the Sandinistas and they'll be more than happy to beat the living shit out of you.if your friends do exist...feel free to share their coordonates..Phone or e-mail...as I really want to know if they are for real.

if your friends do exist...feel free to share their coordonates..Phone or e-mail...as I really want to know if they are for real.

You'd probably be stupid to believe them. You seem to live in a world of denial, and can never accept that leftists can be just as ruthless and nasty as rightists can.

You'd probably be stupid to believe them.you did believe them didnt you?
...and now you are feeling very sptupid.

maybe they are not even Nicaraguans...

just post their coordonates...I can tell if they lived in nicaragua with a few questions.

I dont care...your are still a pawn of Bushite propaganda.

Seriously dude, in fighting monsters too long you've become one yourself.

Seriously dude, in fighting monsters too long you've become one yourself.cry me a river.

cry me a river.

Can't, I'm too busy crying for people who really exist.

You'd probably be stupid to believe them. You seem to live in a world of denial, and can never accept that leftists can be just as ruthless and nasty as rightists can.
ruthless and Nasty...are key ingredient of a Revolution.

I don't know If all the Revolution heroes were enough Ruthless and Nasty...

I do think El_Che was tough enough...

and I know that if I ever take part in a Revolution ...I will be plenty Ruthless and Nasty...

Sometimes I can be ruthless without a Revolution !

I can be "El Caudillo"(the leader, a warrior)...but I seriously doubt you can...you are green and soft.

ruthless and Nasty...are key ingredient of a Revolution.

I don't know If all the Revolution heroes were enough Ruthless and Nasty...

I do think El_Che was tough enough...

and I know that if I ever take part in a Revolution ...I will be plenty Ruthless and Nasty...

Sometimes I can be ruthless without a Revolution !

I can be "El Caudillo"(the leader, a warrior)...but I seriously doubt you can...you are green and soft.

You seem to equate conviction and resolve with the ability to overcome all obstacles.

Your word is your law and it's enforcement.

Eww, aren't those sociopathic tendancies?

You seem to equate conviction and resolve with the ability to overcome all obstacles.Revolution warriors are underdogs (less money, less men , less weapons, less everything)

to overcome very difficult odds...to overcome All Obstacles...or to die trying.

Such is the way of the Revolutionaries.

Revolution warriors are underdogs (less money, less men , less weapons, less everything)

to overcome very difficult odds...to overcome All Obstacles...or to die trying.

Such is the way of the Revolutionaries.

No, you are wrong, not all obstacles are to be destroyed by the warrior aspect.

A freedom fighter is one with his people and should he succeed truly his greatest obstacles will not need to be defeated at all.

A revolutionary is not just a warrior, nor even primarily a warrior. He may be a leader, but that is not his prime motivation. He may be a strategist, but he knows of something more important.

First and foremost a revolutionary is a philosopher. He will not seek to defeat the impossible, he will destroy his most dangerous enemies with his mind and his words, not with his fist.

And that is why Che failed, for all his fervour, his mind could not compete with the resources put against him.

No, you are wrong, not all obstacles are to be destroyed by the warrior aspect.
*snip*

First and foremost a revolutionary is a philosopher. He will not seek to defeat the impossible, he will destroy his most dangerous enemies with his mind and his words, not with his fist.
a philosopher?
will destroy with your mind?
will destroy with Words?

I dont think that will do...simply not tough enough.

First of all, OceanDrive2, the way you speak, I can only figure you are a violence for pleasure seeking maniac and you use some perceived movement as an excuse for your bloodlust. Of course, there is no way in hell you've got the stones to follow through. Have fun getting your jollies over the net and reading about someone else's life.

Second, a revolution is not neccissarily a fight. It is a change. This may involve violence, but often does not.

A warrior also does not run in looking to kill as many opponents as possible. They look to acheive an objective and are prepared to use violence if they need to. However, a good warrior outwits an opponent before outfitting him. Read some Sun Tzu.

And finally, Che was a maniac and every bit as evil as the regimes he tried to over throw (at least he claimed they were evil). He ran concentration camps for people who technically didn't commit any crimes, but weren't as gung ho about communism as he would like(his own admission in his journal). Funny way of liberating people he's got there.

a philosopher?
will destroy with your mind?
will destroy with Words?

I dont think that will do...simply not tough enough.

Not tough enough to penetrate your 'logic'?

Heh, you're funny.

a philosopher?
will destroy with your mind?
will destroy with Words?

I dont think that will do...simply not tough enough.


Che himself said "A guerilla fighter is first a social reformer, a thinker." And that "in seeking to tear dowb the old order, he must have some philosophy or new order to replace it with (paraphrased)"

El Che also said that any wounded enemies should be cared for and released. That no executions should take place off the battlefeild. I'm sure things were different when they had taken power and he was put in charge of punishing the butchers of the old regime, especially the ones he had lost so many friends to, and he prolly got overzealous, but from all the sources I've seen, I feel I know him a bit better, and that he was a person with strong convictions, a strong sence of justice as defined by him, and a man who had flaws. Thank you all who contributed to the intelligent debate, you know who you are.

And OD2, you are really no helping your side, you do come on a tad bit strong. I'd like to see the fervor, but maby with the agression turned down a bit and with some more strict documantation. You said your info comes from relatives. Do you have family in Cuba?

also, Che said that revolution should be non-violent if at all possible, and only resort to guerilla warfare if all other options of social action have been exhausted. So yes, he advocated destroying the old order with your mind, with your words, with the ballot, with the strike and the protest march, before the riot and the rifle.

and..you planning to live for...how many centuries?

Che is a fad, and just like every other fad, he will be replaced by another fad. When that happens he will only be known to students of history as Fidel's right hand man. After all what else did he do?

Che is an odd character. Young, middle-class idealists often end up in the far left, but few make the transformation to guerilla. Che left Mexico with the Castro brothers as a noncombatant doctor. He wrote in his diaries that the moment that he made the transformation to combatant was during a battle when they landed in Cuba. He dropped his medical equiptment and picked up a machine gun and ammunition box. That's the moment that my admiration of Che ends. It takes nobility to give up a cushy bourgeois medical practice to campaign so that others can live free. Anyone can pick up a gun and enforce his will over others. That's why I admire Che the radical activist and Che the writer, but feel that Che the guerilla was misguided and wrong.

I've read quite a bit about the man. For the last few years I have been reading about the atrocities that were committed in the name of Communism and Socialism. Every communist revolution had its own Guevarra. But I will let you educate yourself about that.

I would suggest that anyone who would like to see a Communist takeover of their own country read "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression".

The one theme in all Communist Revolutions is that they become perpetual civil wars between the Government and the people, in whose name the Government ostensibly is acting. Communism as a model for running a macroeconomy is a recipe for disaster (again, educate yourself as to why this is bound to happen). So after the dissidents or "counterrevolutionaries" have been imprisoned or executed the state must find scapegoats to blame for their failure, hence a never ending stream of people become victims of state oppression.

In every case, the situations that led to the overthrow of the governments (oppression, corruption, etc.) were worsened under communism. Starvation appeared in countries (Cambodia & Russia) where it was unheard of before communist rule.

That's why the butcher's bill in the name of communism is around 100 Million people starved, worked to death or killed outright by the state. Guevarra, as State Prosecutor and then Minister of Industry and Head of the Central Bank, was instrumental in turning Cuba into a prison (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18739)

When he became too popular for Castro's liking (Castro's ego is massive and apparently very fragile), Castro sent him off around the world (Algeria-failed, Belgian Congo-failed) and eventually to Bolivia to foment communist revolution. Guevarra's slogan at the time was,"Two, Three, MANY Vietnams!" But not a single Bolivian peasant joined his cause [Black Book, pg. 652]. Castro had the Bolivian Communist Party set up a meeting so that Guevarra and his men could be re-supplied. The Bolivian C.P. tipped off the Bolivian Army and Che Guevarra was executed October 9, 1967, in much the same way he had personally done away with many Cuban 'counterrevolutionaries'.

How anyone could find such a despicable specimen of humanity to be the complete opposite and worthy of admiration, or worse-emulation, is not within my ability to comprehend. I see people walking around with Che T-shirts and for me it is as offensive as someone walking around with a picture of Hitler or bin Laden.

This "hero of the people" also murdered the people who ideologically opposed him. He quite enthusiastically ran Castro's prisons and was responsible for the execution of very many political prisoners.
I agree. Che Guevara was passionate about his cause and cared about ordinary people, but was overly fanatical regarding his opponents. He executed many people neeedlessly and advocated shooting nuclear missiles at the USA in 1962.

I've read quite a bit about the man. For the last few years I have been reading about the atrocities that were committed in the name of Communism and Socialism. Every communist revolution had its own Guevarra. But I will let you educate yourself about that.

I would suggest that anyone who would like to see a Communist takeover of their own country read "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression".

The one theme in all Communist Revolutions is that they become perpetual civil wars between the Government and the people, in whose name the Government ostensibly is acting. Communism as a model for running a macroeconomy is a recipe for disaster (again, educate yourself as to why this is bound to happen). So after the dissidents or "counterrevolutionaries" have been imprisoned or executed the state must find scapegoats to blame for their failure, hence a never ending stream of people become victims of state oppression.

In every case, the situations that led to the overthrow of the governments (oppression, corruption, etc.) were worsened under communism. Starvation appeared in countries (Cambodia & Russia) where it was unheard of before communist rule.

That's why the butcher's bill in the name of communism is around 100 Million people starved, worked to death or killed outright by the state. Guevarra, as State Prosecutor and then Minister of Industry and Head of the Central Bank, was instrumental in turning Cuba into a prison (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18739)

When he became too popular for Castro's liking (Castro's ego is massive and apparently very fragile), Castro sent him off around the world (Algeria-failed, Belgian Congo-failed) and eventually to Bolivia to foment communist revolution. Guevarra's slogan at the time was,"Two, Three, MANY Vietnams!" But not a single Bolivian peasant joined his cause [Black Book, pg. 652]. Castro had the Bolivian Communist Party set up a meeting so that Guevarra and his men could be re-supplied. The Bolivian C.P. tipped off the Bolivian Army and Che Guevarra was executed October 9, 1967, in much the same way he had personally done away with many Cuban 'counterrevolutionaries'.

How anyone could find such a despicable specimen of humanity to be the complete opposite and worthy of admiration, or worse-emulation, is not within my ability to comprehend. I see people walking around with Che T-shirts and for me it is as offensive as someone walking around with a picture of Hitler or bin Laden.

This thread wasn't about Communism, it was about Che. Also, starvation was the Russian Revolution happened, and Lenin did indeed get bread to the people. Stalin fucked everything up.

I started this thread to take a less one-sided view of his life, I suggest you try to do the same. An open mind is a wonderful thing.

After reading this thread I've decided that there are some things about Che that I greatly admire, some things I deplore, and leave it at that.

And Cuba was pretty freakin' bad under Batista. Alot of the bad in Cuba today comes from the gov corruption, and from the US embargo, which as done nothing to dislodge Castro, and only hurts the peasents in whose name we are trying to dislodge him.

This thread wasn't about Communism, it was about Che. Also, starvation was the Russian Revolution happened, and Lenin did indeed get bread to the people. Stalin fucked everything up.

**I wanted to give background information on what it means to be under communist control and the way that they operate. Lenin gave bread to the people he liked. He starved everyone else in order to regain control after the country began to rebel against his policies.These are the tactics that Che used. He learned them from Lenin.

I started this thread to take a less one-sided view of his life, I suggest you try to do the same. An open mind is a wonderful thing.

**Open minded about what? What is there to be open minded about? HE WAS A MURDERER. Calling him a revolutionary doesn't change the fact that he accomplished nothing of value to anyone but Fidel Castro who is a tyrannical communist MILLIONAIRE.

After reading this thread I've decided that there are some things about Che that I greatly admire, some things I deplore, and leave it at that.

And Cuba was pretty freakin' bad under Batista. Alot of the bad in Cuba today comes from the gov corruption, and from the US embargo, which as done nothing to dislodge Castro, and only hurts the peasents in whose name we are trying to dislodge him.

**But people could leave Cuba under Batists couldn't they? They had more freedom under Batista didn't they. Look at what Castro and Guevarra have caused. Cuba could have been like Florida after the revolution. But it isn't, is it? Why? What admirable qualities did Guevarra possess that improved Cuba over what it was?

**I wanted to give background information on what it means to be under communist control and the way that they operate. Lenin gave bread to the people he liked. He starved everyone else in order to regain control after the country began to rebel against his policies.These are the tactics that Che used. He learned them from Lenin.

No, Lenin gave bread to the people. Stalin gave bread to the people he liked, and starved the Ukraine to further his power.
Who did Che starve? No one. He executed the members of the old dictatorship, he didn't try to starve a peoples into non-existance.



**Open minded about what? What is there to be open minded about? HE WAS A MURDERER. Calling him a revolutionary doesn't change the fact that he accomplished nothing of value to anyone but Fidel Castro who is a tyrannical communist MILLIONAIRE.

He cared about people, he wanted to fight for the oppressed, he was passionate about his beliefs that the peasents and indians were being treated like crap by the wealthy landowners, and therefor hated the wealthy landowners. He also ruthlessly executed prisioners after comming to power. But, while a gurilla, he never executed enemy soldiers, in fact he cared for them, fixed their wounds, and sent them back home. I'm not saying that he was a great person, I'm just saying there was more than one said to him, as to all people. You are just as bad as those who idolize him and only look at the "hero" side of him.

And Castro wasn't a millionare before the revolution.


But people could leave Cuba under Batists couldn't they? They had more freedom under Batista didn't they. Look at what Castro and Guevarra have caused. Cuba could have been like Florida after the revolution. But it isn't, is it? Why? What admirable qualities did Guevarra possess that improved Cuba over what it was?

True they could leave under the Batista. Prove they had more freedoms. Most of the people lived as slaves to a few wealthy elite. What freedoms did they have under the Bataista, and what do they have under Castro? Do you have any real knowledge of either conditions, or do you just know that you hate Castro and "communism" and that Cuba is not a good place to live right now?


Che inspired many, he is a symbol for the people, even if his accual life wasn't was people think. If his memory inspires people to rise up and take the justice they deserve (ie, Zapata army, labor movements, et cetera), then his life did benefit people. That is what he wanted. Maby years fighting a brutal distatorship, seeing the evils done to the people made him hard and brutal in turn, but he truly did believe in helping the people.


As I said, I'm not saying that he is a good person, or worthy of praise and admeration, I'm just saying that there is more than one side to his life. To me, it seems he was both "hero" and "evil bastard."