Che Guevara's grandaughter to appear semi-nude in PETA ad.

[HAL 9000 96]

PETA... leftist??

[Chica Yeyé 41]

PETA... leftist??

I know, #######!!!

[Peikko 1,575]

Apparently anything and everything can be 'leftist' if it suits a certain agenda. The dissemination of misinformation to generate feelings of distrust and fear has a long and distinguished history.

Consider this, I was accosted yesterday by some nut who said these exact words "Do you want to do something about Obama the Nazi sympathiser"? You have to be extremely ignorant to give that the time of day, now don't you?

As for the carrot pics, whatever floats your boat

[Scott & Lai 12]

only America thinks El Che was a terrorist..

of course America is wrong there..

Of course.... he was just misunderstood.... he was actually a pacifist, a defender of liberty, and a staunch advocate of human rights. He was an all-around decent guy, just the sort you'd want as your next-door neighbor...

He was a Revolutionary....good or bad depending on who you ask. If being a Revolutionary is equivalent to being a terrorist, we have a terrible historical predicament over the creation of this country.

Are there no distinctions between revolutionaries? Are they all equivalent? Was say, the French Revolution no different from the American Revolution?

Apparently anything and everything can be 'leftist' if it suits a certain agenda.

The same thing can be said about "right wing."

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Interesting that PETA would pick Che's granddaughter for this ad campaign.

Makes perfect sense: Left-Wingnut Radicals pick the granddaughter of a Left-Wingnut Radical as their spokesperson.

multiplied (pick any number exceeding one). Edited June 19, 2009 by CherryXS

[one...two...tree 2,762]

only America thinks El Che was a terrorist..

of course America is wrong there..

Of course.... he was just misunderstood.... he was actually a pacifist, a defender of liberty, and a staunch advocate of human rights. He was an all-around decent guy, just the sort you'd want as your next-door neighbor...

He was a Revolutionary....good or bad depending on who you ask. If being a Revolutionary is equivalent to being a terrorist, we have a terrible historical predicament over the creation of this country.

Are there no distinctions between revolutionaries? Are they all equivalent? Was say, the French Revolution no different from the American Revolution?

Apparently anything and everything can be 'leftist' if it suits a certain agenda.

The same thing can be said about "right wing."

I agree on both counts. TBH, I don't know much about Che Guevera....don't own any merchandise of his ...but I watched the Motorcycle Diaries which was interesting. Anyhow, of limited knowledge of him, I do not think labeling him a terrorist is accurate.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

PETA raaaaks

[Scott & Lai 12]

I don't know much about Che Guevera....don't own any merchandise of his ...but I watched the Motorcycle Diaries which was interesting. Anyhow, of limited knowledge of him, I do not think labeling him a terrorist is accurate.

The Motocycle Diaries makes Che out to be something of an Argentinian Jack Kerouac... What would you say would be the difference between Che and a terrorist?

[alienlovechild 75]

only America thinks El Che was a terrorist..

The Bolivians didn't support him either. Che was an idiot trying to start a revolution where land reform had already been passed and most people weren't looking for a revolution. He and his tiny army were starving.

Shooting him was the best thing for him as he was greater in death as a myth than the loser he was in life.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't know much about Che Guevera....don't own any merchandise of his ...but I watched the Motorcycle Diaries which was interesting. Anyhow, of limited knowledge of him, I do not think labeling him a terrorist is accurate.

The Motocycle Diaries makes Che out to be something of an Argentinian Jack Kerouac... What would you say would be the difference between Che and a terrorist?

That depends on your definition of a terrorist. I'm not trying to be smug, but hopefully you can see that the more broader a definition you apply to the label terrorist, you run into historical problems such as our own Colonists who started the Revolution.

[alienlovechild 75]

That depends on your definition of a terrorist. I'm not trying to be smug, but hopefully you can see that the more broader a definition you apply to the label terrorist, you run into historical problems such as our own Colonists who started the Revolution.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. . .

The American revolutionaries created a constitutional republic with elected leaders, Federalism, checks/balances, functioning independent court system. . . it's lasted over 200 years.

By contrast, Che's Cuba is still a totalitarian state and the only non-democratic government in the hemisphere.

There's a difference.

[HAL 9000 96]

I don't know much about Che Guevera....don't own any merchandise of his ...but I watched the Motorcycle Diaries which was interesting. Anyhow, of limited knowledge of him, I do not think labeling him a terrorist is accurate.

The Motocycle Diaries makes Che out to be something of an Argentinian Jack Kerouac... What would you say would be the difference between Che and a terrorist?

Conversely, what definition of terrorism (beyond guerrilla warfare) would you use to label that man a terrorist? I do not agree with the tactic of guerrilla warfare to achieve ideological goals, but as one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter...

Since terrorism implies tactics:

Indiscriminate murder, bombing, etc... are closer to the actual definition, IMO. Hence, if your definition goes into the ideological, then definitely there is room to make a simile to other revolutionary figures.

[HAL 9000 96]

only America thinks El Che was a terrorist..

The Bolivians didn't support him either. Che was an idiot trying to start a revolution where land reform had already been passed and most people weren't looking for a revolution. He and his tiny army were starving.

Shooting him was the best thing for him as he was greater in death as a myth than the loser he was in life.

As much as I find your language crude... it is indeed accurate although the ideological part of his mantra that resonates is hardly an indication of his living status as smart or stupid. In life he was caught up in cold war politics that ultimately cost him his life.

Although, having been to Bolivia, and studied its history beyond the simple internet, I can affirm that said nation's multiple government changes contradict your reform concept.

[HAL 9000 96]

That depends on your definition of a terrorist. I'm not trying to be smug, but hopefully you can see that the more broader a definition you apply to the label terrorist, you run into historical problems such as our own Colonists who started the Revolution.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. . .

The American revolutionaries created a constitutional republic with elected leaders, Federalism, checks/balances, functioning independent court system. . . it's lasted over 200 years.

By contrast, Che's Cuba is still a totalitarian state and the only non-democratic government in the hemisphere.

There's a difference.

Which would likely be quite different if our elected leaders would have lifted a draconian embargo that only serves to remind Cubans that they have an 'enemy'. Although the island Cubans I've met assure me they do not feel antagonistic towards us or even Washington. Perhaps my observations are a fluke. Perhaps, not.

[alienlovechild 75]

Conversely, what definition of terrorism (beyond guerrilla warfare) would you use to label that man a terrorist? I do not agree with the tactic of guerrilla warfare to achieve ideological goals, but as one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter...

Since terrorism implies tactics:

Indiscriminate murder, bombing, etc... are closer to the actual definition, IMO. Hence, if your definition goes into the ideological, then definitely there is room to make a simile to other revolutionary figures.

What kind of guy claims to be a scientist and not seen the original Star Trek series on this subject?

Some rock alien pits the Enterprise crew against evil humans from the past to determine what "good" and "evil" mean. He notices both use violence so aren't they the same? Kirk goes on with his usual speech at the end about saving money booking hotel rooms.