i tortured
i tortured and executed people who disagreed with me… wanna put me on your t-shirt?
(Che Guevara)
picture: dunno source, via our lol builder. lol caption: warpath515
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous sir, do you know why | Making Obama’s Next »
» 381 Comments
-
Recent Comments
Third on Don we now our gay appare… whynot on Ironically whynot on Ironically The Amazing Rando on Ironically Danbala on Ironically The Amazing Rando on Ironically Danbala on Ironically The Amazing Rando on Ironically J on Ironically Danbala on Ironically 
Cheezburger Network Blog
Only if you’re a moron!
Having grown up in the 60’s, you would never have seen this picture on anything. Guevera was not a nice man, period.
Must explain why you don’t see Bush on T-shirts as well!
No, that’s because you’d get arrested for public indecency.
“Of course, in Soviet Russia there is freedom of speech. In America there is also freedom *after* speech!” – Yakov Smirnoff
Wow. Epic fail.
More like, “Predictable fail.”
Meh.
There is no fail here… Planet of the Apes was a GREAT movie
(thank you American Dad for that joke)
the ignorance that we have in certain things make us insignificant in comparison with others that know what they are talking about, this guy is death, El Che is death, and thats it! but we can learn about what he did, and more important why he die! read , learn and , read, and if you teach to the world something that make it better you will be doing more than just talk about somebody, act, bether than jus criticize or ofend, blessings and lets change the world !!
a lot of people do…
ALot of people are morons.
Yes A LOT of people sure are.
I didn’t write this… it’s not so bad but still that’s not right people
Of course I did. One of the voices in my head told me to do it.
This is why real forums are preferable. They prevent two people having exactly the same name.
See, now you know why I changed me name (or went more specific anyway)
Nah, only pacifists do that.
Haven’t seen too many Quakers or Menonites with Che on their t-shirts.
That’s just because they don’t wear t-shirts.
Zing!
uh, yes we do. i am wearing one right now.
I haven’t said that all pacifists wear Che Guevara T-shirts. I said that all the people who wear a Che Guevara T-shirt are pacifists.
Yes, it’s different. If you don’t understand that, take a photo of your head and send it to failblog.org.
Good one, I bet you save that from 5th grade.
You have some fascination with early school grades don’t you, you damn pedo.
Did you learn that medical term, “pedo”, at the Mayo Clinic, Dr. Que?
Let’s just hope he doesn’t speak from first hand knowledge.
Aw, did I get myself a little stalker? How cute.
Good one, bet you saved that one from 5th grade, wait that implys that you have reached that level of maturity, sorry for confusing you with a human.
Is there an echo in here?
Almost… a revisable echo.
If *you* had reached 5th grade, you *might* have better grammar and spelling.
Good one, I hope your surgery went OK. Make sure the plexiglass window they installed in your stomach to help you see doesn’t fog up.
you spelt ‘implies’ wrong.
Either way, don’t you see the irony?
Um…NO my son wears a Che Guevara t-shirt and he is definately NOT a pacifist.
The picture that belonged with that caption was either George Bush or Dick Cheney!
Yes, of course, another original cliche.. *sigh*
So Eddie, can it be safely assumed that your son is then aspiring to behave like his hero Ernesto?
Sorry, you lost me on that one..
Thank you, I actually knew that a Che Guevara’s fan may not be a pacifist.
By the way, your son admires a guerrillero *and* is not a pacifist… I’d be a little worried if I were you!
All people that wear a Che shirt are pacifists? Isn’t that like all marathon runners wearing Marlboro shirts? When and how did Che become a pacifist icon?
Yeah, I actually missed that part. The world is so strange.
when people started to smoke pot and when high school students started to have a third grade reading level.
Nah, most people who wear Che T-shirts in Latin American believe in armed revolution against US corporate interests and the CIA. Sort of the opposite of pacifism.
uh, i am wearing one right now. also i am not a pacifist and i have read his book “guerrilla warfare”.
just to annoy people, FIFTH!!!!!
I think you mean, “fiiiiiiif!”
LOL FAIL
You all need to read a bit of history. Don’t buy the imperialist propaganda.
I think that he left a copy of his book in Gitmo that didn’t surface until 2003 where it became abest seller in administration circles. I bet their white t-shirts have a small image over their right breast.
Yes, if handing them their copies of the Koran with white gloves on so the infidels wouldn’t contaminate them is torture, then yes.
Win!
cuz everybody knows waterboardng is NOT torture
Cuz it keeps your hair shiny and manageable !
NOOO!! Oh the humanity!!
If it’s not so bad, may I waterboard you?
Oh my! *blush* I’m not sure, we hardly know each other…
But we’ve been debating for weeks now. I think it’s time we took things to the next level.
Last three comments = WIN
I concur. I LOL’d.
Well once you tell me how many people we killed water boarding then i’ll make sure to get angry about it.
Also explain to me where in the Geneva convention it talks about non-state affiliate terroris/militia movements are allowed the right of prisoners.
Then after that explain how someone who sends there kids in strapped with bombs deserves human rights.
Once you explain all that way, examine your sanity.
So, your answer to my question is, yes, violence and torture condemn radical islamicist’s movement, but do not condemn ours. Anyone disagree?
Unless you switched screen names I wasn’t even talking to you.
But you still got pwnd.
ha! zing
This is a public comment board, when you post something you are adressing *everyone*.
But PortlandMark claimed it as _his_ question. Blatantly false unless therer was a screen name change.
See the gray bars going up along the posts? If you follow one, you will that it corresponds to a previous post. That is called a thread. While it’s true this is public, it certainly not polite to take over another person’s question. It is certainly appropriate to post a comment, but not to hijack another persons question.
I think PortlandMark misread this response as relating to his question a few threads down. Easy mistake to make, given the rate the page is growing.
True, thanks.
Thank you, I had no idea what the heck you were talking about.
And everyone who posted saying how dumb I am for not understanding the context of his comment you need to find a book on maturity and hve someone read it to you.
I expected more from you eddie
Um, Eddie was responding to Atticus. And defending you.
TC, exactly, I was just trying to clarify for your benefit. But it’s ok, it DOES get confusing.
Lecturing about posting etiquette on a lol board = fail.
…= metafail?
as in metaphysical failure?
trudat
Wait … did you say Gay Bars? oh no it was Gray Bars… is that old gay guys partying, or is it old guys? I’m confused….
-Zero. Torturing for information is not meant to be deadly.
-If they are prisoners of war, then they need to be treated under the Geneva Convention and related laws. If they are not prisoners of war, then they need to be treated under US law. Currently, neither is happening.
-Everybody deserves human rights, even if they don’t afford them to others.
-I’m just fine.
Wait…how does someone fall under US law when they aren’t a citizen or legal worker in the US?
-No I disagree, if you use children to the end that some have, you don’t deserve human rights, this is one thing you can call me crazy on that I do not see myself ever changing my mind about.
If by using children you mean for suicide bombings, they also use the mentally handicapped as well.
I’m not defending the a**holes, but that particular claim has proven to be false. Not that it makes them any better.
That claim is not false. Where do you get your info, sesame street? Really! If you don’t trust us newscasters to broadcast the news, the look at the bbc. They ran a story about a mentally handicapped iraqi civilian who was kidnapped, strapped with bombs, and made to walk into a group of civilians. When the soldiers realized what was going on, the kidnappers detonated the bomb. I guess now you’ll say it was the soldiers fault, huh? Because they were alert and saw him, he got blown up.
Try here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL21216032
and here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/21/2169335.htm
Reuters and ABC news, respectively. Hardly left wing radical bloggers.
That’s the same story covered by two different television stations. They say the same thing, verbatim. I was thinking of something a bit more recent , as in the last couple of months, not back in febuary.
And your proof that the person in Gitmo does that is?
Right.
You’re a moron.
Take your whining and security blanket elsewhere.
Where did I mention Gitmo? All I was stating, was that there are substantiated reports of militant using children and the mentally handicapped to attack soldiers and civilians alike. A little defensive, are we? Maybe you should spend some more time picketing the war; I’m sure you’re more useful as a roadblock than pretending to be a person with actual intelligence. Try to understand; I’m an american soldier. I fought to give YOU the right to WHINE. SO, WHINE AWAY. I’LL EVEN FIND YOU SOME CHEESE.
I’m a former Army soldier, daughter of a Navy sailor, granddaughter of a WWII vet and great-niece of another one. You didn’t fight to “give” us ANYTHING. We already had it thanks to a bunch of liberal LAWYERS most of whom had never been in combat their entire LIVES.
Got that? LAWYERS WROTE THE CONSTITUTION.
But tell yourself what you need to hear so you can keep on shooting little brown kids. There’s a reason I’m no longer in. I don’t like being anyon’es pawn. The military is supposed to be for national defense.
And we’re supposed to be the good guys. That means we honor human rights NO MATTER WHAT. It’s called having good character. I don’t think we’ve ever had that. But I sure wish we did. We were supposed to be the shining beacon on the hill or some crap like that. We were supposed to be the example to everyone else. Example of what? How to be flaming a-holes?
my convoy in iraq got hit by a handicapped person. she was sent out in to the road and they remote detonated her suicide vest
Maybe because they’re being held by US government people?
Wow…no that’s not why they do it.
In areas that soliders patrol kids have been known to present bombs to the soliders sent by their parents or older adults.
It’s the insurgent forces that encourage this, not the military
Did you really think that?
The insurgents? Or Al Qaeda?
Al Qaeda. The insurgents want you to stop killing their friends.
Paranoid.
Oh really? Just who are their “friends”? Cause when left alone they consistently kill each other if they can’t get to anyone else.
Somebody please think of the children!
Seriously, what is it with you people??
Care to explain what you mean?
See his name, then watch some Simpsons. Mostly the older stuff.
*shrug* I never really got into the Simpsons.
They are being held in US facilities, not most well known of which is Guantanamo Bay. If they are in US facilities, then they can be treated under US law (but international law is preferable).
I’m not saying to charge them under these laws too. International laws would be the first choice, followed by the law of the country where they were captured, next would be the laws of the country they are being held in, and if none of those can be applied then of the country they are a resident of (if applicable). I may have gotten the order wrong, but I know international law comes first.
ALL humans deserve human rights. Who are we, as humans, to decide who gets rights and who does not? We are all created to be equals, therefore we cannot decide who gets human rights and who does not.
That’s a misquote if ever I saw one. We are all created equal, but we are not all created to be equal.
But I agree with the overall sentiment of the post.
Rights aren’t a reward one “deserves”. Rights exist and people have them regardless how you feel about it.
Rights are the cornerstone of liberty, evidence gathering, prosecution, and the defense of the innocent.
Without rights for all there is no liberty for anyone.
Without rights for the accused there is no PROOF IN INVESTIGATION.
Without rights for the guilty there is no HONESTY IN PROSECUTION.
Without rights for the prisoner there is no TRUTH IN CLAIMING TO DEFEND THE INNOCENT.
Get over yourself. Your pain and shock is not God, is not Law, and is not the UNIVERSE.
Right on
funny how certain people are for inalienable rights except when it means they don’t get their way.
some people have an evil agenda and they don’t even know it.
So you’re saying we should torture child abusers?
People may turn a blind eye in the justice system and think they are treating people “fair” but the moment a child abuser gets in prison you better believe the real world kicks in and they get exactly what’s coming to them via the other inmates.
Actually the Law of Land Warfare does cover unconventional forces who are combatants. If they are not combatants, then they are criminal suspects, which are also afforded certain unalienable rights. Waterboarding has been considered torture for over a century and was made illegal for US Soldiers to practice it during the Phillipine Insurection. If you believe in the principles inherent in our founding documents, then you should realize that those rights are endowed upon all men (read & women) by their Creator.
Combatants who are out of uniform have been universally subject to summary execution on the battlefield for centuries. Why we are not doing this now is beyond me. Oh, wait–could it be because we’re trying to demonstrate that civilization as a whole has grown beyond the way these ‘people’ have been doing business for all of recorded history?
Waterboarding does not begin to equate to gouging out the eyes of children, or roasting them alive, or massacring women and children in mosques and attempting to blame it on the western troops, or blowing up pizza parlors and hotels and shopping malls, or sawing off the heads of journalists, or raping and torturing entire familes before murdering them one by one. What you lefties call ‘torture’ is far too good for the perpetrators of such acts. We are exercising unbelievable restraint.
The principles inherent in the US Bill of Rights apply to US citizens, period. I agree, though, that keeping these animals alive and in US custody has opened a great can of worms.
Thank you!!
I think I like you, Ema. That’s the second time you’ve complimented me for one of my responses. The other was me writing as “Q” explaining Easter in defense of the Church. -R.
Was that your definition of the Eucharist? I really liked that, I like you too!
Is there a way to send private messages here that I don’t know about? I’d like to carry this on outside the forum. -R.
No, unfortunately there is not… Not a real forum I guess. Do you post anywhere else where they may have pm?
indabamusic.com
search “ryszard”. I’m “RL” at top of list. You must register, but it’s free, and we can go from there.
I beleive I have sent you a message!
ryszard and ema, seriously!
First a lesson on humanity: “Do unto others as you have them do unto you.” We tried Japan for war crimes after they waterboarded our troops. The official guidebook to the US military (the title of which escapes me) expressly forbids waterboarding, as do most all international courts. “When fighting monsters, one must be careful not to become a monster oneself.”
Second, history: the Magna Carta was written in 1215, allowing for (among other things) a prisoner to be formally charged with wrongdoings. Later, during the Interegnum, a Lord (whose name also escapes – sorry, fussy baby breaks my concentration) imprisoned enemy combatants on an island prison without granting them habeas corpus; when his compatriots found out they had him unconditionally release all his prisoners because that was something you just DIDN’T DO — and this was when lopping of heads and putting them on spikes was considered part of the normal routine.
That’s-a nice. Japan was tried for war crimes against the Chinese people and I think E-R were discussing US law. Regarding the other quotes, they are nice but apply to one’s personal belief and not law. I dig where you’re coming from Herb but I cannot agree.
One who perpetrates inhuman acts to prove the perpetration of inhuman acts, iI forget, is he the good guy or the bad guy?
By law, a captured Iraqi is either classified as a military personnel or as a citizen, both scenarios exclude the use of torture, rendition, and the like. One is not allowed to secretly create a third category whereby none of the established laws apply. That is (supposed to be) the reason why we’re the Good Guys and they’re the Bad Guys.
Legally as well as humanely, this behavior is abhorrent. (Which is the point of the LOL, by the way.)
Herb, yes we are the good guys, but part of being the good guys is to protect those who depend on you. I think there is a trade off here, yes we don’t want to become as bad as they are, but yes we do want to deter the behavior of the bad guys at the same time… What do we do?
Herb, I’ve written another response to you which hasn’t shown up yet, but in which I also say what I am going to say here: READ SOME HISTORY (or in this case, news).
Very few of the individuals whom we have in captivity are Iraqi. Most are Syrian, Palestinian, Iranian, and others. In additon, since 2006, we have known of Iranian regular forces operating in eastern Iraq. This is the same scenario of Vietnam–the invasion of a sovereign nation by another.
Are you really unaware of all this, or are you just trying to misdirect the unknowing?
R.
Neither: I was selecting a nationality at random.
The point of the matter is, if we are detaining someone, they must fall within one of the two categories I listed, both of which exclude the use of torture. (Before he voted to support it) even John McCain was against the idea of using torture to obtain information — which is something I’d like to remind ema as well: what we do in Gitmo is not intended to punish but to (supposedly) gather information.
my scenario stands, gathering of info is done to protect those who depend on the good guys – how would you propose we do that?
“By law, a captured [combatant] is either classified as a military personnel or as a citizen, both scenarios exclude the use of torture, rendition, and the like. One is not allowed to secretly create a third category whereby none of the established laws apply . . . if we are detaining someone, they must fall within one of the two categories I listed”
No, Herb, they don’t, and we have not “secretly created a category”. I know that you are sincere and mean well, but you are quite unaware of the realities of this vastly complex situation.
We all know what a civilian is. Military personnel are members of a nation’s armed forces. Both of these have legal definitions. The people we are discussing are neither. They have taken up arms without sanction, and have declared war on civilization as a whole, not just the US or Israel or the West.
The three per cent of Muslim crazies (which, FYI, includes members of the Saudi monarchy) who adhere to the Wahab sect of Islam ain’t too crazy about their ‘liberal’ brethren, either. Their declared aim is to see the world under a Caliphate–an extremely conservative Islamic theocracy.
The only way to stop them is to break their will. This is done, in military parlance, by “breaking things and hurting people”. As I have said before, we are exercising unbelievable restraint. Unfortunately, this appears to the enemy as weakness, and they only fight harder because of it.
The Soviet military philosophy was phrased thusly: “If you meet mush, advance; if you meet steel, retreat.” We are trying to be steel and velvet, but we are being sorely tested.
By methods which are far less likely to force false confessions. Torture a person enough and you make make them say almost anything.
Also by methods which are not classified as torture.
That was directed at ema btw.
.
For ryszard:
On an ideological basis, they may be against everyone who is not a dangerous fundamentalist Muslim. But in all practicality, they are combatants in a war fighting against the US and other forces. If they are captured, they are to be treated as prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention.
.
“Article 4
1. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.”
Anyone in the mood for a rhetorical question? I got one anyway. Bear in mind, I as of yet have no answer, and am genuinely interested in all valid contributions.
You know there has been a substantial amount of sarin made recently. You have no idea where it is, you have no idea where it will be used. But, you do have a guy who knows. -insert willing suspension of disbelief here- This guy really, really knows. He is not talking. He does not care for deals, or for human life, or for extra priveleges. What do you do? Really, what do you do?
Sorry you went to so much trouble to research that, but–you’re wrong.
I can’t document it, but if you weren’t, there would be a universal outcry against our handling of these bits of filth. There isn’t. Have a nice day.
How can I be wrong? These are exact quotes from the Geneva Convention, it isn’t like I paraphrased anything.
The reason there isn’t universal outcry is because of a combination of ignorance , apathy, and genuine support for these abhorrent tactics and techniques.
.
As for the rhetorical question, you find another way. Intelligence and surveillance can really help. With that, it may be possible to find someone who can actually help.
PiMeister,
I had submitted your question to a political scientist and Constitutional scholar (same person), who provided me with a wealth of information, including this excerpt from your own citation:
“Article 4.1.2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
*(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
*(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
*(c) that of carrying arms openly;
*(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”
The animals we are discussing meet none of these conditions. Further:
“The term Francs-tireurs has been used for an armed fighter who, if captured, is not necessarily entitled to prisoner of war status. This issue was a point of disagreement at the 1899 Hague Conference and was the genesis for the Martens Clause. The Martens Clause was introduced as a compromise wording for the dispute between the Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture and smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants[4][5].
In the Hostages Trial (or, officially, ‘The United States of America vs. Wilhelm List, et al.), the seventh of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, the tribunal found that on the question of partisans, the then current laws of war (the Hague Convention No. IV from 1907), the partisan fighters in southeast Europe could not be considered lawful belligerents under Article 1 of said convention[6]. On Wilhelm List, the tribunal stated
“We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans…”[6]
With the Geneva Conventions, namely Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 francs-tireurs were entitled to prisoner of war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(From “Prisoner Status”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs)
And finally, your ending statement: “The reason there isn’t universal outcry is because of a combination of ignorance , apathy, and genuine support for these abhorrent tactics and techniques.”
I never thought there would be an occasion upon which this phrase would be applied to an adult, but–so you’re right, and everybody else is wrong?
R.
There have been years of outcry. It’s not being covered by our media. The outrage over our detainment and torture techniques.
(I got up to get a cup of coffee, and not cannot remember what I cannot see. I hope that last sentence makes sense.)
There are protest groups all over the world decrying Gitmo. None of the major news outlets record this, so when the President (who only watches FoxNews) visits a foreign nation, he doesn’t know and doesn’t particularly know what said group of angry young people behind a barricade are shouting about. We extend our pressure to not care to the governance and the masses of other countries. After so many years, the cause seems lost.
It would be even more clear that these people are supposed to be given protection under the Geneva Conventions if only the US was actually signatory to all parts of the Convention. In particular, Provision I, which the US has signed bt not ratified.
Pi man, the us never signed the geneva convention. 1, 2, or third. We follow it concerning actually enemy SOLDIERS. Repeat: SOLDIERS. Random civilian combattants do not qualify under the geneva convention. And since we never signed it anyway……
“According to the Red Cross/Red Crescent, the U.S. has signed each of these international agreements. However, a signature does not bind a nation to the treaty unless the document has also been ratified by that nation (in the U.S., Congress ratifies such treaties). Generally, these treaties are open for signature for a limited time period after they’re written. The U.S. ratified all the Geneva Conventions with the exception of the two protocols of 1977.”
ryszard, I stand corrected. Thank you.
You’re welcome, Icy, and thank YOU. -R.
We tried Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American POWs and put those Japanese soldiers to death, I am given to understand.
Waterboarding is against US Law
Herb–READ SOME FREAKIN’ HISTORY.
Japan may or may not have used a form of water torture. That would have been the least of their crimes. They practiced mass murder, arson, cannibalism, used chemical weapons, tortured POWs, kidnaped women in conquered territories and used them as f*** toys for their troops. They used Allied POWs as slaves, and used Islanders who aided the Allies for bayonet practice. And these items are just from the table of contents of the following article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes
Look up the “Rape of Nanking”, during the first six weeks of which the Japs are estimated to have murdered 200,000 civilians and POWs, many by being buried alive. This does not count those who had their hands bound and were thrown into the Yangtze, also alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Nanking
Your anecdote from feudal times is an isolated incident in an era in which extreme brutality was the rule–everywhere.
I appreciate your idealism, but we are not dealing with nice, or even rational, people. In fact, we are dealing with feral animals, with which one cannot negotiate. We have done, and continue to do to these so-called people as we would have them do unto us, and they just keep murdering. If you know of another way to stop them, please tell us and the rest of the world, okay?
“Diplomacy is the art of saying “Nice doggy” until you can find a rock.” -Will Rogers
I have read history. You actually cite my point within your rant. ONE of the charges of war crimes was in relation to their torture of POWs. I know they committed other atrocities; I wasn’t referencing those. I was specifically referencing the use of waterboarding on our soldiers engendering enough ire to add that to the plethora of charges.
–
Regarding a solution, for starters dispense with Othering. You call them inhuman, feral animals, and deny them the dignity of being human beings. Then you wonder why they cannot be negotiated with? You treat them as less-than-human to justify any action taken against them. Why? Because their indoctrination process paints us as evil soulless beasts that aren’t deserving to treated as humans. It’s a cycle.
Not all the insurgents are brainwashed entities. A man is angry because his work has been blown up; he curses at American soldiers who, thinking he’s an enemy, gun him down. His son sees this and in his ire tries shooting the soldiers. In self-defense, the shell the house, killing his infant sister. This enrages the mother, who know decides to take as many people down with her as possible by blowing herself up, leaving a young child orphaned and full of hatred. Blood will have blood.
Herb, I agree with you, but when should we start? Who would make the first move towards a peace? Have we not been in peace talks for decades? There is much more to it than your scenario, there are wealthy and influential people who are encouraging and rewarding the rage towards us for purely political and religious ideology. They don’t care about their own people and use them to advance their hateful agenda, suicide bombings are an example of that. I suppose we could sit back, close all our borders and secure them and let the rest of the world have at it…
It’s a tough call, I admit. Personally I would make public my willingness to dialogue, inviting the assorted world media as witness, then wait for a reply. I would want to talk to all groups, not just the nominal leader of the country. My hope is that, with steady publicity through the cameras explaining that I want an amicable end to this bloodshed, I might get somewhere.
Not everyone abides by the ‘don’t kill the messenger’ ideology (even mesengers of peace), but I figure if I appeal to a broader sense of honor, most bystanders would take my side and at least mourn my passing should I be blown to smithereens.
I would begin my summit with the simple posit of ‘How do we end this?’ Most people just want to be happy. They are my target, not the sociopathic warmongers: there’s more of us then there are of them.
You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
You argue to place the USA in the same category as those you claim to despise. This is situational morality at its greatest.
A nation has the right to survival. Even a morally-based nation, such as the United States, cannot always afford morality when it is faced with unreasoning evil.
[John] Locke’s assessment of the practical impotence of natural law and international morality [leaves] sovereignty, self-defence and national interest as the only reliable normative standards for international relations. Other commentators have discovered a rather different Locke, a proponent of a robust internationalism in which a permissive law of nature provides ready justification for the use of force in international relations including a right of intervention and punitive wars . . .
***
Political realists are often characterised as a-moralists, that any means should be used to uphold the national interest, but a poignant criticism is that the definition of morality is being twisted to assume that acting in one’s own or one’s nation’s interests is immoral or amoral at best. This is an unfair claim against serving one’s national interest, just as claiming that any self-serving action is necessarily immoral on the personal level. -Alexander Moseley, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http:// www. iep.utm.edu/p/polreal.htm
***
If the policies and actions of the U.S. government are to be made to conform to moral standards, those standards are going to have to be America’s own, founded on traditional American principles of justice and propriety. When others fail to conform to those principles, and when their failure to conform has an adverse effect on American interests, as distinct from political tastes, we have every right to complain and, if necessary, to take retaliatory action.
-George F. Kennan, Professor Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton http:// www. foreignaffairs.org/19851201faessay8456/george-f-kennan/morality-and-foreign-policy.html
PiMan and Herb have revealed themselves as delusional, so nothing further is directed at them. CF, I know we disagree on a lot, but you do appear to be rational.
Nice repetition of book facts. Point of fact, during the 20th century the USA evolved a set of criteria, based upon both practice and moral standing, as to how we should treat prisoners of war, in the midst of some of the most dire conditions and threats to our existence, including the most dire, WWII. Yet in the course of a mere 4 years, this President threw away the entire process in a gut reaction to pure emotion. Sorry, not my America.
Luv ya pal, but . . . (Seriously, I think that you and I could have a beer together and have an interesting conversation.)
Howmsoever–nice of you to simply dismiss everything I said, then throw in an assertion which cannot be supported. It’s why I stopped the dialogue with Herb and Piman: How can you, or they, claim to know what is or was in the President’s mind? In their case it is clearly delusional. I know you’re capable of better, and I’d love to hear some actual facts from you. And an actual response to what I am setting forth by any of you lefties, instead of just changing the subject.
“Gotta work on those communication skills.” General Munro, “The Fifth Element”
Beer’s on… Fact. During the Phillipine Insurrection members of the US Army with the intent of saving lives and defending their soldiers exceeded what was considered legimate interrogation methods. The US Army court-martialed soldiers for using waterboarding as a means of interrogation. Fact. Since the begining of this nation we have established ourselves as the defenders of human rights, natural rights endowed by our creator. Fact. The US Army has proven, legal, interrogation methods that work, especially when used by skilled interrogators. Opinion. When one violates their very principles to defend those principles, they may no longer claim them. If you are willing to trow away your deepest held morals, then you have none.
Charles–I salute you. That is the most straightforward answer I have EVER received from a liberal.
It has just occurred to me–*I* was trained as a tactical interrogator in the Army during the early 70s. By the grace of God, I never had to use those skills. (Vietnam was winding down, and I was in Germany having been trained as a Polish linguist (hence my username)). I was taught to be much more aggressive than is my nature, but everything was verbal. I have no idea what might have taken place in the field. I have a feeling that your typical strongly-Catholic Pole would have responded better to an appeal to his faith than to intimidation.
Regarding your opinion, here is one of mine. I agree with your final statement–to a point. (Please bear in mind as I say what follows that I may not have better information than you, but I have been trained to process it differently.)
“Snark” raised a point earlier. You have captured someone who has time-critical information. If he doesn’t call in somewhere in two hours, other bad guys are going to destroy information, weapons, whatever, and move. You *have* to have that information *now* or it is useless. If you don’t get that information, untold numbers of good guys–including civilian populations–could die.
Unlike many of the left–I except you–I begin with the assumption that the US is working for the greater good. Dwight Eisenhower said that, in order to be a good general, you had to be willing to sacrifice 10,000 lives in order to save 20,000. That said, I have little trouble with making one of the enemy extremely uncomfortable for a short time in order to preserve the lives of untold numbers. And also having said that, I would not know how to do that myself.
My feeling [OPINION] is that, while Islamic murderers have prepared themselves for the intellectual concept of dying and then going on to Paradise, they are *not* prepared for the short-term, extreme discomfort of not knowing when or whether they will die in the next few minutes. During interrogator training I was shown movies of a technique resembling waterboarding–performed upon a US interrogator–so I know EXACTLY what is involved. I have no problem with that, nor would I have any difficulty administering it myself. It is possible to determine almost immediately whether or not the information we are given is good–*and we do*. We do not do the things we do gratuitously. They are done in the interest of true liberty.
This could become a dissertation, but I’ll stop now. Again, CF, thanks for your thoughtful reply, and I look forward to our dialogue in the future.
So, by your logic we should eliminate the law of land warfare because after all people have been massacring each other for centuries, hell let’s just get back to raping, pilaging and burning. That concept is phenomenal! I don’t know about you, but I have higher moral values than the people who savage innocents and justify it to suit their politics. Regarding the Bill of Rights, the PRINCIPLES inherent in both the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution of the 1787 reflect natural law and the Age of Enlightenment and are inherent in ALL humans, regardless of country.
You allude to a time when there was an honor in combat. (Noting that in stadard context ‘raping’ was overtaking walls, not forcible intercourse, as the concept of consent was fully developed yet.) Vikings would actually time-out in warfare so that both sides could bend their swords back into shape.
Sure, kinda like Nanking.
Additionally, life wasn’t sweet and rozy either, women were taken by force, or often killed outright and it was quite moral for the times, since “modern” concepts were not fully developed. Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions grew as the practices of 18th and 19th century warfare came into conflict with both modern weapons and modern medicine. No longer was it considered merciful to deliver the coup de grace when you could save the soldiers life with medical skills. I personally don’t believe we should step back in time before these concepts matured to where they exist today. However all of these argument are irrevelent, the Law of Land Warfare is the Law of the Land, our founding philosophies apply to all humans. I find it odd that the conservatives, who consistently claim the moral highground, are among the first to throw morals away when it becomes convenient.
I’m not disagreeing. (Though I was thinking of the 800s with that idle nostalgia)
I do, however, long for the days when the war leaders would actually lead the troops into battle, rather than sit back and send wave after wave.
Actually, war leaders do lead their troops into battle, as they always did… todays centurians, the US Army Sergeant and the US Army Lieutenants are young leaders who live daily with the blood sweat and tears of their soldiers.
And, from an Officer’s perspective, with the decisions that are made. Any branch of the military has Officer’s in charge and in place to make command decisions. Adverse to that, should the decision be erroneous, they are also the one’s that will reap the consequences.
Yes, indeed. The point that I was trying to make with this string is that we have acknowledged the mistakes of the past by saying that even in war there are some things that civilized, moral people will not do, despite what their enemies will do. If we sink to the pit in which our enemies lie, then we have met the enemy and he is us.
“I have met the enemy and he is us.” Stolen from the 60’s comic strip POGO — the greatest political comic strip, ever.
Walt Kelly FTW!
I knew that I liked you!
Sorry, from what I’ve learned about law saying that human has US rights when they are in no way related to the US save the fact they were captured by them makes absolutely no sense to me
Sorry if I was wrong on that, if I am wrong it then I apologize and I was wrong.
I’d like to know what gives you the right to choose who deserves human rights and who doesn’t…
ya correct me if im wrong but dont the geneva conventions state that any combatant out of uniform is considered a spy and is subject to be shot on
the spot?
Are you including all the people who will be killed because it’s such a media coup for those recruiting for those non-state affiliate terrorists / militia? The count’s not in yet, and it never will be.
I am not a pacifist, although I disagree with this caption. he did not torture people just because the disagreed with him. seriously read a book people.
I’m reading a biography of Che actually. Exceedingly interesting, but NO ONE would dispute the fact that the killed a lot of people. 550 were tried by Che and executed by firing squad in the first 3 months after the revolution.
The torture part some people (most like the Cuban authorities) would argue, but I don’t think Che would have any problem admitting to it if he was alive today.
He believed violent revolution to be the only way to bring about socialist reform. If you agree with that, buy all the tshirts you want! …of course thats very capitalist of you…
Oops, typo. Meant to say:
(most likely the Cuban authorities)
I typed “like” instead of “likely” initially… changes the meaning a bit.
Solution – steal the t-shirts!
Agreed. STFU GTFO Imperialist ideology.
Propaganda WIN!
I think it worked a lot for communism, since that photo is one of the most famous logo ever existed.
um k shows how much u acually know. he wasnt a commie he was a socialist
I guess the question is, is it ever justified to use torture and murder to further your ends? Isn’t it a condemnation of your goals if they require these tactics to support them?
question:
When is killing considered murder?
Is killing in a war or revolution considered murder?
It is murder after your side has won, and is executing dissidents.
OR when you kill civilians only because they disegrea about you.
I bet every POW in the history of moderm warfare would agree with you.. on ANY side.
And that, eddie, is why (though I salute your contributions) cannot myself enlist in the military: I cannot reconcile the line between killing and murder, as an issue of humanity. (That, and would they really want an arthritic lefty?)
I hope I didn’t sound like a Recuiter! I firmly believe it takes a great deal of soul searching to make that decision. That is why, despite my differences with Charlie Foxtrot, he made an honorable contribution the country.
Thanks, and likewise, but the beauty of this country is that you don’t have to be a servicemember/veteran to have an equal say. Che was certainly all this LOL said he was, and the romantisized use of his image during the 60’s-70’s and again recently ignores the facts.
People would spit the dummy if we started walking around with Hitler on our t-shirts.
But what about all the good things Hitler did?
Life is not a balance sheet… not our department. sometimes humans do things beyond the pale and other humans correct them. Let God sort out the details.
What if there is no God?
well its a very argumentative issue
some people see him as an idol who stood for freedom and the obliteration oppression
others see him as a communist, and all bad stuff
just depends where you stand on the issue
If you don’t see him as a communist, you’re very delusional. Thats like believing Bush is the president but not a Republican.
Marcus Tullius Cicero, among others, might very well see Mr Bush in that light.
Win.
not a communist he was a socialist
He killed many people with his revolution… but he didnt tortured anyone.
That we know of.. His Best Bud Fidel certainly wasn’t above it. What makes you think Guevera was?
Well… history accounts?
and your citations? I’m one that enjoys history and I can tell you that THIS man was reprehensible on his actions and considered himself above common decency to further his cause.
To say that Castro was his “best bud” is clearly mistaken- he left Cuba and went went to fight revolutions elsewhere because he disagreed with Castro. One might
argue what exactly the disagreement was, but they were, at any rate, not
“best buds”
Maybe not in the end, but they certainly fought side by side.
Well, you know, strange bedfellows and all that.
From the biography of Che I’m reading, Fidel comes off much less violent than Che. Raul, of course, was indisputably the most ruthless and violent of the 3.
Are you reading the one by Jon Lee Anderson? I thought that one was really, really good.
And as horrible as it is to say, I found the photos of Che in it incredibly attractive, though I find the man himself repulsive.
Wow, you know I was thinking the same but didn’t want to mention it, even this one is attractive…
That’s the one! I’m not finished with it yet though.
And Che was totally hot. He got lots of tail.
LOL picture
u r seriusly doint it very wrong
go on and read some history
No, you.
Che personally murdered dozens of people, and hundreds were executed at his orders.
The torture I’m not sure about, but he was ruthless enough to do anything.
So, ordering someone to be executed automatically makes you a bad person then?
I don’t think that’s far off. Yes, including judges and the like in the US.
Some people just need to be killed. At least judges give them a chance.
Nobody needs to be killed. Capital punishment is bad.
The harshest punishment that I think should ever be given to a criminal, is life in prison with a chance of parole. Taking away a person’s life, either immediately or drawn out over decades is cruel.
Most first world countries agree with me about the death penalty, none do about life in prison (but Italy appeared to be headed in this direction last I heard)
So you obviously don’t believe in any use of military force for any reason. Using your arguement, your nation should dissolve their army, dissolve their police force and ask criminals to please go to jail. If your answer is no, then you do believe that societies have the right to protect themselves, therefore they have the right to use deadly force to do so. If this is true, then, using an established procedure, societies have the right to eliminate threats. My only problem with the use of the death penalty within the US is the procedures are not well thought out and applied unevenly.
I’m not sure we need history lessons from someone who types like you.
Or spelling for that matter..
lol!!
With due respect, guys, this is *international* history. English skills are not an essential prerequisite to informed contribution.
(Though some sort of actual content might)
“u r seriusly doint it very wrong”
Please. This is not a foreign language speaker trying to get their point across. Not unless they come from Textonia. When a person tells another person to “go read history” they are insulting their intelligence, and if you are going to insult someone’s intelligence the least you can do is show some of your own.
Nnnnyyeah. ’spose so, though the population of Textonia is probably growing faster than any geographically delineated language group…
Anyhow, please don’t take my criticism too seriusly.
I don’t take anything on the internet too seriously.
What you say!!!??!!
I’ve seen lots of these shirts in Kalifornia- the Liberals love him!
They are on flags too…
And in the offices of some Obama state campaign branches.
Or at least they were, until the blogs found out about it. Then the Che flags suddenly disappeared.
Non-blog source on this (ideally run through Snopes.com)?
Here we go, the story is rather more mundane than EP would have you believe, as usual.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chavez.asp
Win! Good link!
all that says is his campaign was not funded by Hugo Chavez, they still have a flag there with Che on it just like EP said…
It’s the use of plurals. “Flags” “offices” “campaign branches”… It happened once, in one location, with one worker (as much as you’d like to portray otherwise.)
just reportin the facts…
No, you’re supporting an exaggeration. EP suggests there are many flags in many offices of many campaign branches; in reality there was only one.
By your standards, I could mention all those Repub senators always out soliciting gay sex in airport bathrooms, ’cause that’s just “reporting the facts”.
And we might say your stooping pretty low. That guy (can’t remember his name) was NOT running for President. There’s a huge difference. And whether it’s one flag or a million, the fact that Obama’s campaign would minimize it speaks volumes. The picture of Che Guevera in ANY context in a Presidential nominees office is shows a lack of concern for people he is hoping will vote for him.
Well?
Well what? He said he disagreed with it. Sure he could have come down harder, but why and for what purose? To show how willing he is to instill his will onto others, to tell them how to think act or feel? Should he march down to that office, tear the flag off the wall, throw it into the trashcan, burn it, thhen beat the staffers to death with an iron rod? Would that make everyone happy?
After all the business with Rev Wright — “how can he stand for that?” “Why doesn’t he speak out against him?” “Why hasn’t Obama denounced his minister?” “Look at how he just threw his pastor under the bus…” — I’m just a little tired of this one-sided push to decry anything that offends the delicate-yet-selectable sensibilities of the right.
(Yet McCain needn’t distance himself from anyone.)
A little extreme.. I was just thinking that some comment would have been appropriate without resorting to caning his staff. I mean, these people ARE representatives of someone running for President, not some local hick mayor. As for your other comment, Rev. Wright was caught preaching hate and discontent to the people in the church. The hew and cry was about what was said and the fact that Obama attended that church for a long time. It makes you wonder what other garbage was being spewed from the pulpit. And for the record, my sensibilities are not nearly as fragile as some, on both sides of the fence.
Citation please?
Here’s your freakin’ citation. Never mind the source, nobody from Obama’s side disputed it.
http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/images/2008/02/11/obamache.jpg
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/ObamaChe.jpg
-R.
“People who don’t learn what happened before they were born will forever remain children.” -Cicero
So, er, undisputed accusations can be assumed to be accurate?
That *is* what you’re implying, right?
Nice try. That is what students of propaganda call a “glittering generalization”. I was speaking to the one situation. (BTW, Obama said something to the effect that displaying Che’s image showed poor judgment, but did not ask that it be removed.)
R.
My apologies. Only *your* undisputed accusations should be assumed to be accurate. How very obtuse of me.
And I undisputedly accuse you of obtusely not having stopped beating your wife.
Indeed, you do.
Lol! He links the photos sans any context. Typical…
Typical of what exactly?
You want context? Here’s the search page I worked from. You could have done the same; instead you chose to make a generalization about something–without context. Is that typical of you?
Turn that one around on you, I see lots of conservatives sporting KKK robes, swaztikas and the stars& bars. There are wacks at both extremes of the spectrum.
Agreed!
Indubitably!
He was a “liberator” Liberators are so misunderstood, just ask Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. I don’t suggest you ask W because he actually is too stupid to understand what irony means. “It’s like RA I AAAIN on your wedding day…”
Win!
Yah…look how great the people in Cuba have it today! It must be great to be “liberated” from freedom, or from life if trying to get away from their utopia.
I’m sure not a big supporter of the Castros or Cuba’s government, but I give Cuba credit for two things: their literacy rate is close to 100%, and their medical system is rated by WHO as being almost equal to ours (We’re rated 37th in the world, Cuba is 39th).
Two good links. The first is from Stephen Bedrick, from Oregon Health Sciences University, one of our leading medical research colleges:
http://oninformatics.com/?p=37
This one is from some French Canadian Doctor at an institution I don’t know, so I can’t judge her perception:
http://www.jmir.org/2006/1/e1/
39th only because “someone” do not allow medicine and medical hardware to enter island…it’s not nice nor fair…
Oh yes, and USA having the 37th place and still pretendig to be a civil nation tastes to me like a…uhmmm…a load of shit?
(BTW: i talk as a proud medic of a nation where ALL the life care is free for all citiziens, you pay just a “burocratic” fee ranging from 15 dollars for specialist exams to 100 for a surgery intervention, if U are poor, you do not pay even these…conversely we still have the “worstest” politician ever seen on Earth, so rotten and corrupted that decadent Byzantium can figure as a haven of righteousness…try to guess where I live…)
And on the general argument:
some people become so brain-washed in its ideas that a bullet in the head is the only way to stop them from harming others. An they exist both on left and right…simply, idiots and poor witted people come in lots…and they must be stopped…
Example: how to make the corrupted oligarchs begin a new life as honest man of a just society? Impossible. And the history is full of subhuman parasites… KKK, Nazis, Fascists, Maoist, Red Khmers, Stalinist, sustainers of USA invasions around the world…and all the like…
If u cannot change them, bury’em…
WIN! on the most immature and idiotic comment your meager mind could think up.
Yeah where are the Bush tshirts? He is responsible for 4100 US soldier death and countless Iraqi civilians. He failed to prevent 9-11. Why do all the little Nazi lovers in this country also love Bush?
I guess you little Nazi-lovers love Bush because he gives you a target for your hatred.
I guess we would have to have damn big t-shirt then to include all of the Members of Congress that voted for the war, yes?
ZING!
That was A MA ZA ZING!
Well sure, shame on the Democrats who voted in favor of the Iraq war, kudoes to those who voted in favor of Afghanistan. However, the *only* people who voted against Iraq were Democrats. Oh, and Bernie Sanders. Oh, and maybe Chuck Hegel? I’m not sure, he may have been a latecomer.
But collectively they are all responsible.
Not entirely Eddie. I am not completely letting congress off the hook here, but they did vote based on bad information and pressure. The fact that they let themselves get pressured into voting for the war, and didn’t look into the information they were fed is indeed their fault though.
Thanks for clarifying that. It’s what I was alluding to.
[I'm remembering the bit in "Fahrenheit 9/11" where the Congressman admits that he and most his peers tend not to read every bill, but instead vote on summary.]
Maybe said shirt ought to have the whole lot, Executive and Legislative, with the six or so abstainers blacked out?
Also, I think it’s important we try to remember what it felt like after 9/11. Even I , as much as I feared and mistrusted GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, felt like it was important to fall in to line and support our leaders. I think we all collectively wanted to believe that W would act like a responsible leader and honestly try to do what was right for our country. Even a liberal like me couldn’t believe he would take advantage of this opportunity to line the pockets of his rich friends at Halliburton and in the Carlysle Group.
It grieves me to say we were wrong.
I agree. At the time we were all telling ourselves that if the government said it had intelligence of WMDs and that this war was necessary we wanted to believe that they were telling us the truth, that they would have access to information us regular citizens didn’t. 9/11 was still so fresh in everyone’s minds and we wanted to believe in our government. This is not to say I supported the war, I was actually very conflicted about the war and this is why.
(Any reference to Bernie Sanders makes me want scream like the obsessed political sports fan I am. For Bernie, I’d probably even paint myself in his colors.)
Too bad he’s not from Oregon. I’d love the chance to vote for him!
I helped to vote him into Senate, then had to move. I still send him Xmas cards though.
Does it count if the T-shirt carries the LOL caption?
Only if written in Norwegian!
( Mind you, those moose bites can be pretty nasty)
Heh!
That’s really funny!
My sides hurt from chortling so whole-heartedly!
Really, really funny.
Chortling is such a great word!
Actually you got it wrong, many sources cite (including the UN) that che was actually following their standards than the USA.
Most bad press demonizes him rather than shows us the truth.
He actually became a freedom fighter after he watched CIA-assisted rebels overthrow Guatemala.
With the CIA helping rebels execute anyone who disagrees with them and then the Guantanamo bay torturing of anyone who is a suspected terrorist and even those who just know those said people can you really say that you are better people?
I meant to say following their standards more closely than the USA
Up at the 2nd line
Hell, yeah! That’s exactly what’s people who disagree with me deserves!!!
eddiepscetti
September 1st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“I guess we would have to have damn big t-shirt then to include all of the Members of Congress that voted for the war, yes?”
-They were duped by Bush, who blames “bad intelligence.”
Yah…look how great the people in Cuba have it today! It must be great to be “liberated” from freedom, or from life if trying to get away from their utopia.”
-At least they have health care that doesn’t screw the average Joe out of his life savings if he gets sick late in life. Do you honestly believe that all those 65-year-olds you see working at taco bell are there because they think it’s fun? and don’t blame them for not being able to balance their own checkbooks – they go through life just fine before the last 20-25 years of irresponsible spending. Yes, I thought clinton was an ass.
Evil Pundit
September 1st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
“Che personally murdered dozens of people, and hundreds were executed at his orders.”
-So if Blackwater, under the pretense that this is a “just” war, does it for Bush it doesn’t count?
Evil Pundit
September 1st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
“It is murder after your side has won, and is executing dissidents.”
-So you actually agree? oh wait they don’t have rights, they’re terrorists, they don’t “deserve” any rights. Not everyone can dupe their congress and spend billions of dollars supporting such lies. The world is NOT that black and white.
Trainwreck Chaser
September 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“Well once you tell me how many people we killed water boarding then i’ll make sure to get angry about it. Also explain to me where in the Geneva convention it talks about non-state affiliate terroris/militia movements are allowed the right of prisoners. Then after that explain how someone who sends there kids in strapped with bombs deserves human rights. Once you explain all that way, examine your sanity.”
-You’re missing the point. Just because the U.S. has labeled these people “terrorists” doesn’t make a difference. It’s just a label of the current era: we’ve also had other labels (in the derogatory sense) such as: “witches,” “anarchists” and the old favorite “communists.” Also, there’s only been ONE conviction, and who would that be? yes, it’s the all-important bin laden driver…hooray! that was pointless…he’s practically going to be free in a couple of months…and don’t tell me that it’s a sign that the “court” system is “working.” As for the suicide bombers, not everyone has billions of dollars to send planes thousands of miles to bomb the sh*t out of a city. If you had little to no resources, what are you going to fight a tank with, a couple of rocks and a stick? I’m NOT excusing their behavior, but many Iraqi see us as the invaders (or of causing more harm/chaos than good), al-qaeda was not in Iraq before we started “liberating” people – and it wasn’t because saddam was an ultra-nationalist, a type of government that has NO room for religious fanatics.
Look at this source, especially sections A and C, and check YOUR sanity:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
This would have been easier to read if you had posted each reply separately. But you make good points.
Before I read most of this thank you for making it an arguement and not an attack, now I’m very interested.
“If you had little to no resources, what are you going to fight a tank with, a couple of rocks and a stick? I’m NOT excusing their behavior, but many Iraqi see us as the invaders (or of causing more harm/chaos than good), al-qaeda was not in Iraq before we started “liberating” people – and it wasn’t because saddam was an ultra-nationalist, a type of government that has NO room for religious fanatics.”
Their method of suicide bombing come from there religious ties to dying as a warrior to go to heaven. Strategically you are exactly right, but it is fueled by religious standards as well that became cultural standards.
I’ve also heard, but I can’t confirm, that they were there before we invaded. SEcondly, if they did head there because of us, then we must be uncovering something they don’t want us to fine.
“1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;”
Can you link this at all? Your implying that this is in the Geneva convention, is that a fact?
These people are not considered armed forces, they are considered militias, and since they are not protecting a state but assualting one, it’s considered a terrorist organization. Theirfore their human rights do not exist. The sentence ‘to this end’ as I read (I could be wrong) means that because of these criteria, which none of the ‘assualting militias’ have, means they don’t fall under the rights of the Geneva convetion
My point about using children to attack there enemies….this is where I’m biased and will admit it my bias, anyone that use children for those means to me loses there human rights. Secondly, sometimes the insurgents fight with fake (even possibly) really babies where there armored vest is….that is an effective tactic, but one that means you’ve lost your respect for human life and there for you lose your human rights given to you by Geneva convention. This may be my personal opinion but I think it is a damn good one.
Thank you for not mocking me, and yes I think i’m partly insane at times.
The quoted section is from Article Three of each of the Geneva Conventions. The full text may be found at Wikisource.
.
These people’s rights always exist. Either they are combatants whom are to be treated as prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention, or they are civilians whom are to be treated as such under the Fourth Geneva Convention. There is no in between, there is no outside. All people fall under one of these two classifications.
.
To make sure you understand that prisoners captured from Iraq, Afghanistan or any other location under warlike conditions, you should read Article 2:
“In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.”
.
For as long as The United States is a part of the Geneva Convention, they must treat ALL people captured from Iraq and Afghanistan in accordance with it. There are NO exceptions.
I have given a detailed response (which hasn’t appeared yet) to this in our mutual thread above. YOU’RE STILL WRONG. Until my piece appears, carefully read Article 4.1.2, a, b, c, and d of the Third Geneva Convention–which you provided.
These people gave up their rights by under the Convention by not “having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” (i.e., a uniform, or even an armband), not “carrying arms openly”, and by not “conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war”. Your–and the Convention’s–words, not mine.
You are right that they are not prisoners of war under 4.1.2.
But they do classify under 4.1.1, 4.1.3, and/or 4.1.6 depending on exact circumstances. Also 4.2.1 if they were a member of Iraq’s or Afghanistan’s military at any time.
Also, when their status is unknown or in doubt, they are to be protected by the convention anyway. Due to article 5.
For the record, I did say the first one, but you’re attributing something to me that I didn’t say. As for what I did post, you can’t hang the entire war in Iraq on Bush, not matter how much you would like to. It’s a collective responsibility for those who voted ‘aye’. Don’t know who did or didn’t? Contact your Congressman find out, then vote their ass out if you don’t approve. I’m sure if Bush and the people in Congress who voted ‘aye’ had a wayback machine, things would be vastly different today.
Bush et al produced doctored evidence, fraudulent documents, and incomplete information about the “threat in Iraq”. As a single example, it has been revealed that the initial NIE regarding Iraq contained several notes that suggested Iraq was *no* threat, and that those who said it was were unreliable for one reason or another. However, the version of the NIE they showed our legislators had those statements removed.
There are also a number of documents (Nigerian yellowcake, claims of meetings between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence in Paris) that were forged by either American or Italian intelligence operatives by the direction of the administration.
Still, I can’t really forgive them for voting with the pres on the AUF, because even *I* knew these things were lies, just from scouting international news sources as well as American. Hard to believe they didn’t know anyone with an internet connection.
It’s for things like this that sometimes i want to get martian passport :-p
Of course, we get wat we deserves in italy, so let berlusconi waste to the bone the nation, in hope famine and starvation might reconduct some of the proletarian that voted him to a more sane politic position.
Because if you get less than a 100,000 $ in a working year (plus taxes) and stiill vote for a CONDEMNED criminal, illicit money investor, mafia lakey, law infringer…you are a complete IDIOT deserving the worst of torments.
And possibly the extintion of your genetic branch to prevent the history from repeating…
Please cite sources.
Similar story. I saw a 16 year old kid wearing a shirt with the picture graphic from the movie, A Clockwork Orange. I said, “That’s a neat shirt. Have you seen the movie or know what the movie is about?” The answer, “Naw dude i ain’t seen the movie but the shirt is cool!” His parents looked at me and i realized we had the same looks on our faces. These kids have no idea what they are wearing or what it stands for. They just think since it looks cool then they’ll wear it. 100 years from now they’ll be wearing swastikas because they think it looks cool.
WilliamCA
And the movie, by the omission of Chapter 21, completely misses the point of the book. Funny that.
Some years ago there was an uproar over the nihilistic shirts with Charles Manson’s mug and the slogan “Charlie Don’t Surf” (from “Apocalypse Now”); most kids wearing them didn’t get the overarching criticism of society through violence and war, and neither did the adults complaining.
I do so love that nothing is more capitalistic that the mass-market popularity of Che shirts and mass-produced anarchy buttons. Those little shits shopping at Hot Topic give me such a chuckle…
Hot Topic = goth in a box.
I don’t know about the whole “swastika” thing, but I’m very proud of my MANJI T-shirt.
You have no fucking idea what the swastika actually is, do you? Pre-nazi, it was a symbol of eternity, holiness, the life-giving wind, etc. for hundreds, even thousands of years before the Nazi regime. That’s still what it means to me.
Maybe YOU ought to know what you’re talking about.
Finally! Someone else who actually knows what it means, sadly that’s not exactly what it represents to most these days
It is perhaps unfortunate, but true, that the perceived meaning of the swastika has forever been changed because of the Nazi party.
Nope. The swastika is the Manji but tilted slightly to the side. Not entirely the same symbol, mind you.
That’s true, but most people will look at someone wearing one as a horrible person. Just the way it is.
I actually do know what the MANJI/Swastika is about and it’s origins. Still doesn’t separate the fact that symbol is viewed here in a America as a Nazi symbol. just like saying “I’m Bad” means you’re cool, not a bad person
WilliamCA
Then again, most people see a pentagram and automatically associate it with satanism even though it was a pagan symbol long before the christians adopted it as a symbol of satanists. And preemptive reply here, no, Pagans do not worship, nor even beleive in the existance of, satan. Making the “Pagans worship the devil” argument is like saying followers of the Norse pantheon of deities worship Hades, the greek god of the underworld.
Yes but the Pentagram has never been used as a symbol of a genocidal regime. I think a lot of people know that the swastika has its origins in many ancient culture but for what it has been used for in modern times means displaying it and wearing it is in bad taste to say the least.
Just saying, many symbols are twisted to mean something else, either by the people who mis-use it, or the enemies of the people who use it properly.
I think it could be argue that none have been more famously twisted than the swastika. I’m not saying I disagree with you, I’m just saying I wouldn’t wear one in public. Would you?
The cross itself used by christian is literaly soaked in blood, and in most cases the blood was guilt only of being heretic and so they went eradicated (mind the early repressions of the mediterranean heresies…entire regions depopulated on the edge of the swords…i’ll be lesser ashame of bearing a swastica…
Obviously the hope is that by the next 3 centuries the swastica return to be a neutral symbol, no more than a rune might be…
Of course ask an afghani sheperd who tinks of a star spangled banner… you can heard a lot of curses from him…
Like I said, I invite you to put a swastika on a t-shirt and go to the mall. Do it.
I love it. Someone who chooses to call himself “Destructive Spirit” (Angra Mainyu, or Ahriman) levels the usual exaggerated claims against the Christian church.
Were the Crusaders misguided adventurers who slaughtered innocents in the Holy Land? Of course they were–in turn with the equally brutal Muslim Saracens. Each party was responsible on many occasions for “depopulating” towns and villages.
But the prize for depopulating *regions* would go to the Turks (not present-day Turkey, the Turkic people whose empire at times extended from Asia Minor to China), the Persians, (who have always made a specialty of playing two sides against each other and moving in to take advantage of the vacuum), the Mongols and Huns, the Chinese from the second millennium BC (400,000 enemy soldiers executed after *one battle*) to the present (25 million dead of starvation in the early 1960s during a famine to which the Communist government did not want to admit, plus however many are dying in their version of the Gulag), Nazi Germany (tens of millions), the leaders of Soviet Russia (70 million murdered in their own country from the October Revolution until the dismantling of the Union under Reagan/Bush, and not counting Afghanistan and their satellite states). We don’t know how many are dying each day in North Korea due to starvation, or in the various nations of Africa and southeast Asia due to disease, starvation, war, and genocide *for which their own governments are responsible*. And of course, the death toll is always rising from the thousands of attacks by those acting in the name of the “peaceful religion of Islam” from the first highjacking in the late 1960s to the most recent carbombing wherever these pathological cowards have chosen to strike.
Not the Church. Not the United States or the evil West.
Get me some numbers on how many have died in the name of the Cross and maybe we can talk.
R.
um it seems that whoever wrote the caption doesn’t even know who che is. i mean REALLY doesn’t know. dude ppl before you think something would be hilarious to post check your facts, otherwise make your way straight to the fail blog with your pick.
Not funny. The caption writer is trying to make a political point – Che is bad guy, responsible for torture & murder so why the hell do some clueless people wear t-shirts with Che’s image? Good point. Mock Che. But make it funny.
Not a bad guy, a good guy who had to do bad things…
Perhaps he had a good cause, but then maybe went about it the wrong way. But do we really have to label it kindergarten terms like “good” and “bad”?
Only for those on this board who have such simplistic thinking.
Few people see the various shades of grey
Actually, if you take away good and bad your phrase becomes “Not a guy, a guy who had to do things…”
Why so many people wear Che T-shirts?
well in US i don’t know. but outside i can tell you
because the anti-US hype.
As Che was against the “north-american imperalism” he automatically become a god guy.
No matter his crimes.
I can believe it, people are idiots.
Nah, fight fire with fire if the enemy understand only the same methods…
Simple, efficient and “history approved”…
Of course i think a lot of lefty people are idiots, even if I consider myself of the same wing…as the so called “shop windows bursters” (spaccavetrine in italian) they claim to be left rebels, but tey’re only middle class moron manipulated by sone petty leaders that want to make noise in the attempt to get some attention.
Mass execution for them ‘ll be a nice idea…it’s hard to defend the good name of communist IDEAL (not referring to governments that claimed to be communist, they all failed in the end, becomng fascist dictatorship) whe you have those bastards soiling it…
Che was a great hero of the working class. Despite what you may believe. Additionally, all revolutions kill. George Washington and the rest of the founding fathers of the USA killed people that didn’t agree with them. Do you really believe the loyalists didn’t suffer at the hands of them? You wouldn’t have any qualms of putting Thomas Jefferson on your shirt would you? But he was a slave owner and if one of his slaves ran away do you think they would not be beat?
Just because you people disagree with liberating the working class so that you may oppress them you demonify revolutionary heroes. Worse yet, you have convinced the working class of the US that Socialism and Communism is evil. What I can’t figure out is how they have been convinced that the liberation of the working masses is a bad thing.
Che didn’t “liberate” anyone.
Communism is slavery.
Communism is an economic system for the distribution of wealth. One that didn’t work mind you. but it is nothing more or less than that.
Communism (with a lowercase “c”) as well as socialism, and to a lesser degree anarchy, can work, but never on a national level. Small communities of like-minded people only.
Actually, communism is sharing. Everytime a mom tells her child to share, she is teaching him/her to be a communist.
Communism is economic ruin. I can’t think of a prosperous country where true communism is actually implemented. The Chinese have pretty well abandoned the economic aspect of communism, which was what it was all about in the first place.
Kibbutzim in Israel.
Real communism involves the removal of economics wherever possible. It doesn’t tend to work on a decent scale because there is always at least one person who is greedy.
As long as humans are involved communism is doomed to fail.
I’ll fail because who actually rule society instill in every (weak) mind that “you must prevail” “you must have more than others” and similars…
And of course, communism exixted on this earth only at very beginning of soviet union, then all faded with Lenin’s death. Becoming a nightmare much like giant medieval feudalism on a continental scale…
In china communism never existed at all…
So open your eyes, and try to think who was really taking decision for you until this moment. And be honest to not refuge into denial to preserve mental sanity…
Paranoia is a comprensible state of mind if u look in one glimpse to all the power who oppress and try to control us.
Take a look at “They Live” of Carpenter…and in addiction of the messages, try to understand who represents the aliens…want a hint? Ok…really do u think that in our world all man are equals? Or otherwise is much more a world where some born low and stay low forever, when powerful an whealty perpetuates theyr lineage giving to heirs and descendant the highest power positions? And in between there’s the greatest frud of all, a little part of the “lowers” is conditionated to think that they can climb the social ladder up, when at last they remain only poor puppets manoeuvred by occult masters and public economic powers…
Think free…be free!
In Capitalism, Man exploits Man.
In Communism, it’s exactly the other way round.
(variously attributed)
Just trying the ‘click on my name for more lolz’ trick…
…seems to work OK
“The virtue of communism is the equal sharing of misery. The vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings.” -Winston Churchill
True if and only if ‘misery’ is taken to be identical with the privative of ‘blessings’ – in which case it’s a pretty good one-line synopsis of “das Kapital”
(just in case): the first part of the post (my own) to which this is a reply is my *opinion* – I’m not presuming to pass any sort of absolute philosophical judgment on the case.
Nice quote.
Slavery was a separate issue from the American Revolution, so your attempt to equate the A.R. with Che’s revolution thereby is a failure. Persecution of loyalists was not the policy of the American government at the time. A tight watch was kept on their activities, but they were not (generally) deprived of life or property.
Marx states that Communism is the logical outcome of history. If you plan to take up his philosophy, perhaps a better knowledge of history would be in order?
*blink*blink*
Tories were very much so unjustly denied their property. Correction: -some- but not -all- Tories…. And though they were never summarily executed for their “crime”, they were -occasionally- tarred and feathered which, contrary to all those cartoons we watched growing up, is not a pleasant experience (third degree burns on exposed flesh in a time before antiseptics and burn wards?).
I believe that was mob “justice” at work though, not official government policy.
There were entire towns that had loyalist sentiment. The last thing the fledgling American government needed was to aggravate internal strife.
Anybody see these pics of Che on a Cuban flag in Obama’s Houston campaign office? Never mind the source, nobody’s disputing it.
http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/images/2008/02/11/obamache.jpg
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4232/picture3rf8.png
It wasn’t Obama’s Houston campaign office. It was an independently funded volunteer office. No one involved in the campaign knew anything about it until it broke on the news, so there wasn’t really anything to refute.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chavez.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chavez.asp
I’ll dispute what it MEANS:
It’s a volunteer office and not controlled (or supported) by Obama. Could Obama have reacted differently, yes. Does this have any actual political meaning in regards to Obama? No.
Snopes WIN!
Back to Che. Bottom line is he is probably not as bad or good as anyone here claims. Yes he was a violent man and did a lot of nasty stuff, but you have to consider this in the context of the time.
He played a role in overthrowing a vile dictator that was fucking the country over – corrupt, murdering/torturing political enemies. Batista(the dictator) was a friend of the USA(the local goon looking after their interests much like a Sadam in the days when relations were good with him), so needless to say the revolution didn’t go down too well on the mainland, and I think this is the main reason Che is often demonized.
That being said there was a lot of violent reprisals(murder/torture) after the revolution succeeded and you have to know about this to see a fuller picture of Che, beyond the wholesome crusading against tyranny image that is often presented. Than again you have to also consider that after the revolution there was massive concern in Cuba that the USA would invade or aide a counter revolution so the paranoia within the Cuban security apparatus probably contributed further to the post revolution violence, although no doubt a lot of it was good old fashioned revenge.
At least someone can see it in context.
I mean during the fighting it was a matter of kill or be killed. Let a deserter go and the entire unit will likely be wiped out. Executing after wards is no different to any other regime change in history. (us executing Saddam, or whatever). Letting an enemy like that live is dangerous.
The sad thing about life is that people rarely respond to anything but violence.
Look at Burma, they peacefully protested at the government, a few people were executed and most of the world has now forgotten that the country even exists…….no change there.
Dictators like Saddam, the ones in Burma or the ones Che fought have,will only only step down in forced. People like power.
Some people are “lost” to normal and peaceful living, power and blood tend to be a bit intoxicating…and death is the only effective theraphy…sad but true…
wtf my comment isnt added!
Part 1:
Trainwreck Chaser
September 1st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
G.A. : “If you had little to no resources, what are you going to fight a tank with, a couple of rocks and a stick? I’m NOT excusing their behavior, but many Iraqi see us as the invaders (or of causing more harm/chaos than good), al-qaeda was not in Iraq before we started “liberating” people – and it wasn’t because saddam was an ultra-nationalist, a type of government that has NO room for religious fanatics.”
T.C. : “Their method of suicide bombing come from there religious ties to dying as a warrior to go to heaven. Strategically you are exactly right, but it is fueled by religious standards as well that became cultural standards.”
- Their religious standards have NOT become cultural standards. These are a group of, compared to the rest of the general population, and ESPECIALLY compared to Islam in general, are NOT the cultural standards. They are an extremely small minority which seek to create chaos for their own ends. It is completely uncalled for to lump everyone fighting an (seen as a) occupying force in to one group. If you say that it says it in the Koran, well then all that I can tell you is that Christianity has also twisted the Bible’s teachings at different times to justify violence, repression, and war.
Hypothetically, say you are an Iraqi. For years and years, you have been dominated by an ultra-nationalist dictator. You also, like almost every one of your brethren have been in the army, in which when you are discharged are issued an assault weapon. This is common in the middle east, and not just arab countries, for instance, Israel. then one day, your electricity is cut, you communications are dead (no phone, tv, and limited radio). you are desperate and people around you are starving (as limitations of food and other necesary aid have been limited, via embargo, to your country for YEARS already, further weakening you). then, out of nowhere, a foreign army comes over the hill. you’ve got a gun and are throughly confused as to what to do, except, are you going to just lay down your weapon and be conquered by an army whose intentions you know nothing about? HELL NO. You’re going to fight back by whatever means necessary. The leaflets written in arabic that have been dropped from the sky to try to tell you that army’s intentions and “promises?” Forget about it, you’ve been completely walked all over most of your life by the fascist government you’ve been living under. WHY in the world would you possibly believe the next set of “promises?”
I give this example because small (and of course most often not reported to the general public) bands of people (not always religious fanatics) have started fighting foreign (occupying) forces because they want THEIR OWN COUNTRY BACK. IS THAT UNREASONABLE? I THINK NOT. YOU WOULD FIGHT BACK TOO.
T.C. : “These people are not considered armed forces, they are considered militias, and since they are not protecting a state but assualting one, it’s considered a terrorist organization. Theirfore their human rights do not exist. The sentence ‘to this end’ as I read (I could be wrong) means that because of these criteria, which none of the ‘assualting militias’ have, means they don’t fall under the rights of the Geneva convetion”
- Are we not signers to the convention? YES. are they not humans? YES. Just because an armed group has been sanctioned by a government, does it make it any more legitimate? NO. Do you think we are “defending” ourselves in Iraq? are you kidding me? Iraq has absolutely no connection to the U.S. “reasons” for being there in the first place. Even in the LEAST, IF there was any sort of defending of Iraqis because of say, the gassing of Kurds and Djali, it would be complete and utter hypocrisy. Yes, that’s right, we sold Saddam (the precursors to make) those weapons when it was convenient for us in the early 80’s. Look up Saddam and Rumsfeld (shaking hands) at the National Security Archive and read the accompanying literature, especially the paragraph where “Document 52″ is cited.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
*salutes*
And think what USA have lived on from foundation to our days…
It seems like a nation built on the belief of ritual war and bloodshedding (of others obviously) from englishman, to natives, to mexicans, centro american, northafricans, philipinians, europeans (ww1), europeans again (ww2), korean, vietnamese, south americans, arabs…
Shit, that’s a 3 century long trail of blood!
And the only (short) times when thei did not waged war onto someone, the nation was bring into recession…nice to see…and to reflect on it…
I’ve got more to say…what’s going on here?
::”My point about using children to attack there enemies….this is where I’m biased and will admit it my bias, anyone that use children for those means to me loses there human rights. Secondly, sometimes the insurgents fight with fake (even possibly) really babies where there armored vest is….that is an effective tactic, but one that means you’ve lost your respect for human life and there for you lose your human rights given to you by Geneva convention. This may be my personal opinion but I think it is a damn good one.”::
You are entitled to your opinion. I respect the fact that every person has their own opinion. Nothing wrong with that. So, what about trampling over people’s livelihoods with tanks? This example might be a rarity, but when the world has mass media, this is what gets burned in to people’s minds. Like I said, likely a rarity, but check out this video and tell me you wouldn’t be mad if you were an Iraqi and saw this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PgdR6qfyls
and if you’re still not convinced about the mass media:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zWltQ475S4
I don’t endorse what Israel does at all, and I can definitely see frustration.
And again if you find me crazy so be I understand.
I believe the Bible, and what it says for prophecy. The day that Israel is suppose to get nuked will be a very very interesting day……. But yeah I don’t agree with this, but enough people will voice there opinion about this so that my voice won’t matter.
You are right though, this is ridiculous.
What about human shields? This IS an APPALLING tactic, and you would think that the U.S. and its allies would not stoop to such levels. When I say this, I am referring to the close Israel-U.S. ties. Note that I am NOT attacking or signaling out Israel, but when you consider close diplomatic, economic and military ties, of COURSE many Arab states are going to lump the two countries in to the same categorical aggressor. But this is a bit more of a tangent. Here, check out this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGSwmiwlhdQ
(the last segment of the two boys in front of the army vehicle can be seen separately, plus two credible sources at the end of the vid) at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tomdEkOgdKU
My point in all this is everyone deserves rights. I am NOT taking sides. When the U.S. signed this convention, they agreed to HUMAN rights, not rights defined by what the U.S. government believes is the “right” thing to do. Putting people in danger (i.e. human shields), selective human rights, and wording terms such as ‘terrorist(s)’ in such undefined ways are all acts of explicit violence. As an American, and especially as a Human, I am appalled at both sides of the conflict. If we (and our allies) are to be the model democracy that we all believe in, we should not and cannot act the way that we do. In the eyes of the world, ACTIONS are FAR more powerful than mere words.
An actual well thought argument. Very well said Guess Again.
Man, that was actually difficult trying to post all of those, this site must have some weird filters or some such stuff…..
If you post links straight into the box, they have to go through a spam checker, or something, so it takes longer.
Huh. That makes sense..thanks.
So wait… conservatives are bashing Che, for engaging in the sort of behavior that a Republican president has been engaged in for the past six years or so?
I’m no fan of Guevara, pretty much for the same reason that I’m no fan of Bush. But at least Guevara had his act together.
Guevara was a tool. And he was nothing like Bush.
Quite true. Guevara had specific goals and a plan for achieving them.
He had a goal, but I question the plan.
He started as a revolutionary after traveling south America and seeing the atrocious conditions the lower and middle class were living in. They were exploited, had no right to education, no chance to better themselves and their economic situation. He wanted the lower class to rise and take what belonged to them. He wanted the indigenous people to take back their land, the poor to take back their resources so they could have a better future.
What he did or did not do in Cuba is another issue, power does that to people.. This man was south American, he had ideals that included the unification of south america and the well being of the lower class. That’s why they put him on shirts, he represents the revolutionary ideals.
I have to say that no matter how I feel about his methods the way indigenous peoples were treated on both North and South American continents by Spaniards was deplorable, English weren’t too much better either.
You do realize of course the difference? Bush has not personally held a gun to someone’s head and pulled the trigger. Further to that, the military has never outright executed someone for disagreeing with them. So yes, your analogy is so full of holes you can drive a tank through them.
No, Bush has his proxies do the dirty work. At least Guevara had the cojones to implement his own policy. And what is war but disagreement writ large? Bush has ordered the deaths of many times over the body count that Guevara was able to drum up. We can argue all day over who was the bloodier villain, but I think it’s obvious they’re cut from the same cloth.
The difference is, if Bush is all that you say he is, then why hasn’t he been impeached? Even after the so called frabicated documents, nothing was done? Hell, Nixon was drummed out of office on lesser charges.
Careful eddie: you imply Nixon was impeached. He wasn’t; he resigned before he could be officially impeached. They wanted to impeach Tricky Dick, but they did impeach Slick Willie and Andrew Johnson.
Basically, if your nickname doubles as a euphemism for “penis” you can expect to be impeached.
–
And neither Bush or Dick have been impeached because of that fucking Pelosi announcing it was off the table. Y’know, I wouldn’t be so pissed if they just didn’t get around to it, but openly announcing you’re not going to pursue the one vital check to abuse of powers?! That’s like telling a five-year-old not to worry, you’re never going to punish him if he misbehaves!
Dead on, Herb.
WIN
The problem with this picture is that it’s more political than funny. It also points out that the person who captioned this doesn’t understand the politics of revolution. Someone needs to recaption this so that if they’re going to make fun of Che, EVERYONE can laugh at it.
I didn’t caption it, I do understand the politics of revolution and the caption is not only accurate and funny, it points out the idiocy of people who wear things because they are popular without thinking through the historic context.
That caption is as funny as telling the same Bush jokes as we told in 2001. I’ve heard more wit out of George Clooney’s mouth.
The person who captioned this understands tyhe politics of Marxist revolution quite well.
All Communist revolutions lead to torture and mass murder of everyone who doesn’t toe the political line.
Similar, then, to Plutocratic non-revolution where people just get tortured and mass negligent-manslaughtered in the course of making a living; more stochastically weighted than actually directed at those who don’t toe the line, but the effect’s the same.
*Not* advocating violent revolution – just pointing out that many of the regimes overthrown by Communist revolutions were at least as bad as, say, Ba’athist Iraq. No one knew, then, that Uncle Sam would be along soon with a shipload of Freedom(tm), so they organized their own, from the bottom up – you of all people should appreciate that.
why does everyone hate Che? I’m mexican, and I like him because he had a great cause and I don’t think it’s fair to even compare him to bush. spread of health care to oil corruption. Che is only made a villain in our eyes because we live in america, and the governments control over the media basically allows them to see only what they want us to. If you wanna compare bush to some villain why not try Hitler?
‘Cause that’s a cliche beyond all cliches.
venceremos
That would be Radio Venceremos!
Caption autofail in 3…2…1.
Amnesty International figures:
Prisoners held on political grounds without trial/due process on Cuba
In Cuban Territory: 12
Guantanamo Bay (US territory): >500
Google it.
What a ‘hero’ ol’ murderin’ Che was; while the campesinos and other ‘revolutionaries’ did all of the fighting, Fidel, Raul and Che, particularly Fidel and Che, would lay back on a hill a good ways away from the action and take pot shots with scoped rifles. After the fighting was over, they’d walk down, mop up, do a bit of torturing and such. Great folks.
Yes yes and you were there at the times uh?
Stop propaganda from stuffing your brain with shit…and listen to firsthand reports…
wow sometimes these comment boards are like water boarding…
*cough cough*
but it’s only drowning my brain, not my lungs…
I don’t even think that Che is smiling in hell with his facade on shirts. He didn’t like consumer culture and now they’re using him to sell t-shirts.
Oh, man, I’m just so losing it… Some of you folks need to actually head down to a library, and look up a book from before everyone started revising history to suit themselves… Che -liked- to personally participate in executions. He was so whacked out that Fidel had him snuffed. I think that says something right there. When you compare relatively harmless political figures to people like him or Hitler, you’re doing nothing but damaging your own credibility. Che, or Hitler, for that matter, would have executed Gandhi… and not even blinked. And executed anyone who disagreed with that action. There -is- evil in the world, and it’s not limited to Republican politicians.
Check you own history. Che was bad, but Castro didn’t kill him.
How curious! gringo scruples…
I just wanna say that most of you don’t undesrtand the context because you don’t live in a 3rd world country. That’s all. I like Che because he fought things that were really wrong, and I respect him for that. You may argue that he was carried away by his ideas, by his methods, maybe there was not other way. But you can never EVER say, that he was a bad man. What do you know about south american history? only your fitered version.
Of course you may disagree, but that’s my perspective of one man who traveled all around south america helping people, do you even know he was a doctor who helped poor people for free?
Nice discussion nevertheless.
yeah right like americans r angels, invadin another country, killing kids, women men……….its stupid to say u want to end terrorism with terrorism……..so why u critize the Che
And now he’s being prayed to as a saint.
He also surrendered with a fully loaded gun. Woo! Great revolutionary, right there.
A cheap shot to piss of people you probably don’t agree with politically. Even if he got carried away, did a lot of bad stuff an so on, that’s not the ideas he represents to the people that wears the t-shirts now.
Third-hand reocunts of what he did and what happened that one time with those guys doesn’t really make for good arguements either. Digging up dirt on famous people that have been involved in politics as well as armed conflicts isn’t all that hard, especially when you go for the first thing that pops up when googling. Try your favorite hero on any “side”.
“A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love, it is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality”
~ Ernesto Che Guevara
“Let the world change you, and you can change the world”
~Ernesto Che Guevara
enough said.
Tell me the name of an US president, in the last 40 years, that don´t supported any dictadorship. CIA torture and kill people around the world every day.
In my country (Brazil) we had a violent, US backenned, millitary dictadorship. The CIA trainned brazilian torturers.
If, in spite of it, you proudly wear the US flag colors, let me use my nice Che tshirt.
(Sorry for my bad english).
One of the best lols. And absolutely correct. Thanks.