“Hatred as an element of the struggle..”

I had previously asked, given that Gerry Adams is a fan of the middle-class would-be permanent revolutionary, whether it was still chic to worship ‘Che’ in Sinn Féin in this new ‘indigenous’ deal. The Belfast Telegraph reports that we may, or may not, find out.

A spokesman for the west Belfast MP said: “Gerry was one of a range of people interviewed for this documentary. The interview took place in London and he was asked when he first saw the iconic image of Che Guevara, what the image means to him, the impact on the conflict here and his lasting legacy 40 years on.”

The documentary, of which the interview is a part, has been made by the same Trisha Ziff who curated the exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum in 2006. But nevermind the image, what about the facts? [new link]

“Our mission, in the first hour, shall be to survive; later, we shall follow the perennial example of the guerrilla, carrying out armed propaganda (in the Vietnamese sense, that is, the bullets of propaganda, of the battles won or lost — but fought — against the enemy). The great lesson of the invincibility of the guerrillas taking root in the dispossessed masses. The galvanizing of the national spirit, the preparation for harder tasks, for resisting even more violent repressions. Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.”

, , , ,

  • Peadar O’Donnell

    Winston Churchill could have said this, or Bomber Harris – and they killed many more civilians than Guevara.

  • Given that hatred is the basis of all war, including armed struggle, is it not conceivable that the leader of that violent rebellion against the ways of God could be the Antichrist? If it isn’t an antichrist in the form of Che, or Castro, or Stalin, or Mao, someone’s going to come along who fits the bill as THE ANTICHRIST, a person who actually believes there is merit in the bloodlust.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Gerry Adams, the Antichrist (because he actually still believes in the merit of armed struggle despite all the killing, deaths, 15,000 prioners convicted from his own organisation, 120,000 years served by his prisoners, and the ending of his campaign in a failure to achieve what it set out to achieve.)

    Why Gerry Adams is the Antichrist!

    First of all, I believe that Gerry Adams is the Antichrist because of the coincidence that his name comes out at 666 on my numeric alphabet (see Appendix 1), a numeric alphabet that I discovered during my years at St Columb’s College in Derry and further investigated during my years at University College Galway. If his name didn’t come at 666, using some reasonable means, then I would not believe that he is the Antichrist. He would simply be to me just another delinquent who leads a very large conspiracy to undermine Ireland.

    Second of all, due to another pertinent coincidence his name contains “Adam”, the name of the first man, and from a theological point of view, this adds much to the basis of him being the Antichrist. Adam coincidentally means ‘man’ in Hebrew, and the number of the beast is specifically described as “man’s number” (Rev 13:18).

    These are extraordinary coincidences and not to dismissed by any means by any intelligent observer of matters theological.

    The apostle Paul wrote: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22). Adam therefore symbolises death, and thus the question must be asked, is there significance to the ‘Adam’ in Gerry Adams’ name? Does Gerry Adams, the effective leader of the IRA’s republican movement, symbolise death?

    The descriptions of the beasts in the Book of Revelation are interesting.

    ‘The inhabitants worshipped the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed,’ (Rev 13:12). Coincidentally, Gerry Adams was shot and wounded in 1984, but recovered. Afterwards, he became Sinn Fein president and one of the foremost politicians in Northern Ireland. The use of violence for him is a matter of tactics. That is a matter of fact and record. Gerry Adams has not stepped away from violence. He believes in his own words that “there is a time for peace and a time for war”, mocking the Prince of Peace and equating Christ with the Antichrist, good with evil.

    The first beast, who is said to be the Antichrist, is prophesied to have “seven heads” (Rev 13:1), which is coincidentally the number of heads on the IRA army council, including Gerry Adams’ allegedly.

    “Who can make war against him?” (Rev 13:7). The IRA has been described as ‘the most sophisticated terrorist organisation in the history of mankind’. Their structure makes it impossible for a conventional army to defeat them

    Gerry Adams fulfilled another prophecy during the run-up to the 2007 Assembly election campaign in the North of Ireland. This involved him requesting the use of Clonard Monastery (Roman Catholic) church in West Belfast for a political meeting discussing his party’s policy. He still believed that armed struggle was a legitimate means of resolving differences.

    When Gerry Adams took to the altar of Clonard monastery while his beliefs were in conflict with Christ’s teaching, he was proclaiming himself to be wiser than God and better than Jesus Christ. He was in logic proclaiming himself to be God.

    “[The man of lawlessness or the Antichrist] will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thes 2:3-4)

    For more, click on my name and follow links.

  • Garibaldy

    Pete this is what the 3rd thread you’ve shoehorned this hatred thing into? Anyway, not to be pedantic, but it’s totally misleading to call Che a permanent revolutionary. He hated Trotskyism, and this suggests he was one.

    On another note, given that Adams rejected revolutionary socialism when he went with the Provisionals, this makes his appearance in this video even more laughable. Clearly this Ziff woman is intoxicated by the whiff of grapeshot.

  • Garibaldy

    Oh yeah, as I pointed out before Che also said that the revolutionary’s motivation comes from love for his fellow man. Not from hatred.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Garibaldy: “Oh yeah, as I pointed out before Che also said that the revolutionary’s motivation comes from love for his fellow man. Not from hatred. ”

    Oh, surely, as demonstrated by his extra-judicial executions of “enemies of the revolution.”

    Che was Beria writ small.

  • Quaysider

    I could take these references to “Bomber Harris” more seriously if they didn’t invariably come from sneaky regarders of Bomber Adams.

  • Garibaldy

    It was indeed demonstrated by that Dread seeing as they would have done exactly the same to him. These things unfortunately happen during large scale civil wars. And were most of the executions not carried out by revolutionary tribunals, i.e. emergency courts?

  • Garibaldy

    Quaysider,

    There’s a pedar o’donnel who posts on politics.ie who supports The Workers’ Party. If this is the same one, then hardly someone who regards Adams well.

  • USA

    I suppose just not bothering to read the crazy posts from that whack job John O’Connell is one route to take, but it is annoying to see this garbage appearing frequently recently.
    Is he joking or is he actually this mentally unbalanced? Should he be reported to the police or medical professionals? Incarcerated or medicated?
    I guess it is one of the drawbacks of blogging…his post are the inane ramblings of a complete fuckin nut job.
    Christian fundamentalism at its finest.

  • Pete Baker

    Garibaldy

    “as I pointed out before Che also said that the revolutionary’s motivation comes from love for his fellow man. Not from hatred.”

    His alleged kindness to small animals is probably more relevant than his attempt to justify the sort of tactics he advocated in his last article – where the quote is from.

    As for shoe-horning it in again..

    Gerry was being asked about Guevara’s impact and the legacy from it..

  • circles

    Pete who are you quoting in the title? I don’t see it appearing anywhere else in the text. Quite confusing to have a quote then hit us with Gerry Adams’ name – although as far as I can see the quote does not come from him, in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with him. Poor show old chap.

  • Garibaldy

    Pete,

    That quote is from a collection of his articles but alas I do not have it to hand. In fact, I couldn’t even tell you were it is. But it seems to me just as valid a reflection of his policy as this description of how soldiers fighting a war (guerilla or otherwise) must feel in order to be victorious.

  • Rory

    Magnificent case you make against Adams here, Pete. Why you even appear to have convinced John O’Connall. You must be thrilled.

  • USA

    One word for our good friends on the other side of the pond is … shallow.

    How can we take you seriously? You really don’t know if I’m serious or joking because Americans tend to be so shallow?

    The truth is that you will never know the mind of God in choosing Gerry Adams, your good friend, of course lest you deny it, as the beast of Revelation. Others may sense its relevance and just not care, but you get upset and that demonstrates that you simply haven’t got a clue about the Troubles. You owe alliegance to someone who is in fact delusional according to the good book.

  • Rory

    I should imagine that the case was made during the course of the Troubles with all those people being murdered in the pursuit of the tactical use of human suffering.

    If that doesn’t make him dangerously deluded in your mind, then nothing will.

    I’m sure that I’m accurate in insisting that God has something to say about Gerry’s tactical use of human suffering. He’ll be wondering why Gerry is trying to do God’s job.

  • kensei

    Might be more pertinent to ask what Adams actually thinks about “hared as an element of the struggle”. I might then refer you to Jimmy Drumm’s 1997 Bodenstown speech, written by Adams and Morrison that states that the armed struggle could not be sustained by the simple presence of the British alone, or be could the movement survive purely based on hate. It is one of the very early moves towards ending Abstentionism and moving towards a political route, and might therefore be relevant.

    But of course, we all know that if you admire someone you have to agree unquestionably with every single statement they made or action they’ve performed, at every single point in time, even if you random pull a quote of of context and insist it’s the entirety of the man’s view. Pete is such a thorough and rigorous poster it must be true, especially as he’s seen fit to post it three times.

  • kensei

    Should of course be 1977 speech.

  • PaddyReilly

    John O’Connell, I’m at little confused as to what has happened to the assistant anti-Christ, namely the Rev Ian Paisley, now that he has resigned. Will he continue to be assistant Anti-Christ from his position of impotence? What happens if, Satan forbid, he dies? Or has Peter Robinson taken on his role for him?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Garibaldy: “It was indeed demonstrated by that Dread seeing as they would have done exactly the same to him. These things unfortunately happen during large scale civil wars. And were most of the executions not carried out by revolutionary tribunals, i.e. emergency courts? ”

    If you would dignify the notion of Che and a collection of his underlings being “a court.” The verdict was a given, with La Cabana fortress filling the same role as Lubianka prison. Ernesto played Beria to Castro’s Stalin, with the dead having more to do with cementing the power of the revolution than justice or even vengeance.

    A telling point — apologists for both Che and the Cuban regieme overlook Ernesto’s own statements where they conflict with the preferred narrative. Che was a gigolo — a travelling hobo who mooched off women who proved to have a small talent for murdering bound men.

    As for his quotes, Garibaldy…

    “Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us above and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to, and transforming him into an effective, violent, seductive and cold killing machine.” – Ernesto “Che” Guevara

  • Dread Cthulhu

    In short — who should I believe, you or Ernie?

  • Garibaldy

    You left out this bit Dread from the paragraph Pete quotes

    “Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.”

    In other words, the regimes he was facing were so brutal, moving beyond one’s natural empathy for all men was necessary to defeat them. Seems reasonable enough. And hardly unprecedented.

  • Garibaldy

    You can believe his description of what is required to overcome brutal tyranny, and that he was motivated by love for mankind. The two are not at all contradictory.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Garibaldy: “You can believe his description of what is required to overcome brutal tyranny, and that he was motivated by love for mankind. The two are not at all contradictory. ”

    Feh. By that standard, one could point to a whole host of totalitarian thugs who “loved,” Garibaldy.

    I would point out that Che said a true revolutionary is motivated by love. That said, his almost pornographic passages in his diaries about shooting some of his own mean makes whether Ernie was what a body would consider a “true revolutionary.”

    I find it passingly strange that one could claim that love for one’s fellow man would support the act of personally executing a fourteen year old boy for trying to defend his father from Che’s murder squad.

    The only difference between Pol Pot and Che is that one of them was educated in Paris and one of them wasn’t.

  • Garibaldy

    Yeah cause Cuba after the Revolution began by removing the cities, then massacring educated people, instead of raising the educational standards across the country.

    Removing an oppressive regime justified violence. And Che did not shirk from it. At least in that he was not a hypocrite or a coward, unlike say some of our politicians or a certain leader of the free world.

    We all – with the exception of extreme pacifists – see circumstances where violence is justified. For Che it was removing corrupt and brutal dictatorships that oppressed millions. I can think of worse reasons.

  • Pete Baker

    ken

    “[nor] could the movement survive purely based on hate”

    “Hatred as an element in the struggle..”

    I’m sure you appreciate the comparison.

    “we all know that if you admire someone you have to agree unquestionably with every single statement they made or action they’ve performed.”

    I’ve simply pointed out that the man Adams publicly pays homage to has made the statements quoted.

    A case in point is the paragraph which follows the quoted section in the original post – and which I also quoted here. Btw, I had intended to include that link in the original post, I’ll add it now.

    “We must carry the war into every corner the enemy happens to carry it: to his home, to his centers of entertainment; a total war. It is necessary to prevent him from having a moment of peace, a quiet moment outside his barracks or even inside; we must attack him wherever he may be; make him feel like a cornered beast wherever he may move. Then his moral fiber shall begin to decline. He will even become more beastly, but we shall notice how the signs of decadence begin to appear.”

  • PaddyReilly

    You’re missing the point, Paddy.

    It’s all coming to a close now and you’ve either missed all the action or you were cheering it on.

    Paisley, like Adams, is irrelevant now. All that is required of them is that they retire gracefully. But they won’t. They’ll continue to justify evil, more in word than in deed, and they have to be challenged and made an example of so that the world may know the road to peace.

    And in this the prophecies are in my favour. I write that with a grin on my face.

  • Lorraine

    i agree with USA, and i live this side of the pond: if shallowness is anywhere in this site its the bloody inane drivel which john o’connell tries to shove down people’s throats. and john, DON’T invite me to look at your site again. coming from this side of the pond i’ve endured enough religious fundamentalists and their diatribes of hate wrapped up in the cloak of jesus’ love.

  • Lorraine

    Where is the hate, dear?

    Who do I hate?

    All I present is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation. I’m sorry if you thought that God would think that Gerry Adams is the good guy. This thread is about shallow evil men who advocate the tactical use of human suffering. That is the evil in all this not the fact that Gerry Adams will go down in history as the Antichrist. That is my contribution, and I ask you to respect that, rather than insulting my and most people’s intelligence.

  • Pete Baker

    John

    As I have suggested elsewhere

    “The only issue of matter is whether any argument put forward is rational.

    You claim – “All I present is an interpretation of the Book of Revelation.”

    That fails the rationality test.

  • It must be my own status as a cold killing machine, but I don’t see anything wrong with what Guevara says about hatred. Should, for instance, the French Resistance have loved their neighbours the Nazis and turned the other cheek?

    And I don’t see any contradiction between the hatred quote and his other observation, to which Garibaldy refers, that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. How can you be guided by a great feeling of love unless you can also, when the moment arises and you are confronted by a brutal enemy, be guided by a great feeling of hatred?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Garibaldy: “Yeah cause Cuba after the Revolution began by removing the cities, then massacring educated people, instead of raising the educational standards across the country. ”

    Are you suggesting that La Cabana wasn’t a killing field, where Ernie eliminated those best equipped to resist the totalitarian state that Ernie was killing — murdering — to establish and cement?

    Are you suggesting that the foundation of Socialist Cuba isn’t built on a mound of bodies?

    Garibaldy: “Removing an oppressive regime justified violence. And Che did not shirk from it. At least in that he was not a hypocrite or a coward, unlike say some of our politicians or a certain leader of the free world. ”

    I wouldn’t say that — for all his ANG flight time is sneered at, he was flying a plane you couldn’t pay me to go up in, and I like flying.

    But this smacks of rationalization, Garibaldy. You laud the murder for for not being a hypocrite, which suggests your values are somewhat misplaced. By your standards, the like of the UDA and UVF are fine, upstanding individuals, as they did their own killing and aren’t hypocrites.

    Garibaldy: “For Che it was removing corrupt and brutal dictatorships that oppressed millions. I can think of worse reasons.”

    Ah, but Che also found it appropriate to excercise when comrades lacked what he saw as “inadequate fervor” for the revolution, a response to petty theft and as an appropriate punishment for not wanting one’s father shot.

    Sounds like violence was a pretty common response for Ernie.

  • Lorraine

    john
    1. don’t patronise me and call me dear
    2. you’re obviously infatuated with gerry adams, given that i didn’t mention him, or defend him; you still feel the need to work him into your esoteric diatribes and warped interpretations of the Bible, demonstrating your own personal hatred of the man (wrapped up in the cloak of jesus’ love, of course). you are just like the other fundamentalist preachers of hate who stoke the fires of wars and then wash your hands of it and claim it all has nothing to do with you. i see through charlatans like you.
    3. end of dialogue.

  • Garibaldy

    Dread,

    I’m suggesting that the executions carried out in Cuba of flunkeys of tyranny were incredibly different to the activities of Pol Pot in both scale and nature. Which any rational person can see.

    Socialist Cuba is built on a successful struggle against tyranny, followed by huge redistribution and the building of new social services that transformed the lives of the Cuban people beyond recognition. Which is how the Cubans themselves feel. What are you trying to do is delegitimise a revolutionary struggle against tyranny, not at all different in spirit from that that secured American independence and overthrew feudalism and absolutism in France.

    My comment on hypocrisy raised the issue of whether those who encourage violence through their actions but are too cowardly to carry it out are not as culpable as those who do. So many politicians here have blood on their hands through encouraging the men of violence, and Bush is guilty of total hypocrisy for dodging a war and then running around starting them. Therefore I have less respect for him than say Kerry or Mc Cain, though I reject US involvement in Vietnam entirely. By saying the cowardly encourager of murderer adds hypocisy to his crimes is not to support them or regard them as fine, upstanding individuals. I don’t think that’s a skewed moral comapss at all, I think it’s a perfectly common attitude to enemies during warfare for example.

    Violence was a common response during warfare. But, and this is the difference with the likes of Pol Pot, not once the revolution had been secured.

  • knsei

    I’m sure you appreciate the comparison.

    Sophistry. I’m more than sure you could appreciate the juxtaposition of the 1977 Bodenstown speech and the quote from Che. The difference in direction and tone is stark, and I rate the significance and import ahead of pedantic picking on words. But each to their own.

    I’ve simply pointed out that the man Adams publicly pays homage to has made the statements quoted.

    Now that, Pete, is an outright lie. You draw attention to those statements not simply to note that this is a somehow interesting tidbit, but to associate those views with Adams and invite the reader to make certain comparisons. What you are doing is no different to the current Reverend Wright furore in America. There is plenty to condemn Adams with from his own mouth if you are so inclined. There is no need to pass on the words or sins of others.

    Moreover, I fundamentally disagree with what you are doing here. It’s appalling. You are using a single quote of a man out of context and out of time. How you use it is equally appalling – that anyone who admires him must somehow take the totality of his views by association.

    Che is an interesting character and it is certainly possible to admire aspects of him while disliking others. A quick such of Google doesn’t give much on Adams specific opinions on him but being much more thorough than me I’m sure that you’d be able to turn up something. That might be a more interesting an informative contribution than innuendo.

  • Pete Baker

    kn

    Im sure you appreciate the comparison.

    Sophistry. I’m more than sure you could appreciate the juxtaposition of the 1977 Bodenstown speech and the quote from Che [from 1967]. The difference in direction and tone is stark, and I rate the significance and import ahead of pedantic picking on words. But each to their own.”

    In response to –

    “[nor] could the movement survive purely based on hate”

    “Hatred as an element in the struggle..”

    I’m sure you appreciate the comparison.”

    Sophistry, indeed.

    As for

    “Che is an interesting character and it is certainly possible to admire aspects of him while disliking others. A quick such of Google doesn’t give much on Adams specific opinions on him but being much more thorough than me I’m sure that you’d be able to turn up something.”

    Feel free to add more information on that topic.

    It’s what the internet was invented for.

    “The internet removes the time barrier. Without it, we never stop, and still we’re never completely right. But everything can be changed. Publish what you know now; learn more, add more. It’s never finished and it’s never completely right.”

    You don’t expect me to argue your case for you. Do you?

  • kensei

    Should, for instance, the French Resistance have loved their neighbours the Nazis and turned the other cheek?

    This always struck me as one of the most appalling difficulties of Christianity: you are called to love your enemies, no matter what they do. It is easy to say in trite manner but truly difficult to apply. So, yes, if they were Christian they should have loved him. The interview with Gordon Wilson about Enniskillen was on that programme last night. I pray I’m never tested to see if I’m a tenth of the man he was. Whether or not “turning the other cheek” is required in this case would be debated by theologians. But personally I’d say no. There is Just War, though it is rare.

    At the same time, while I think it’s ultimately destructive, it’s easy to see how Che could have came to that attitude faced with many of the things he saw; and in a sense I admire the uncompromising nature and the pureness of the argument:

    impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine

    effectively he is prepared to trade his soul to defeat what he sees as a truly evil enemy; no tolerance of it is permitted. There is a certain admirability in that, and the uncompromising nature links a little with me to the uncompromising bushido philosophy of the Samurai of which I am fond.

    Am I allowed conflicting views?

  • kensei

    Sophistry, indeed.

    Yes. Basing the argument around single words rather than the totality is exactly that. Repeating it does not change it.

    Che is arguing for an all consuming hate; he may cite it as an “element of the struggle” but it becomes the totality of the man that pushes him “beyond the natural limits”. Moreover, it is a call to hate. The 1977 Bodenstown speech is a call to move away from hate.

    You don’t expect me to argue your case for you. Do you?

    I don’t believe I was making any association of the views of Che Guevara with Gerry Adams. You are. To make your case you would require words from Adams, not Guevara. I’d prefer if you could reflect some current positions too, since it’s about now, but you know, anything would be a start.

    Basically: where’s the beef?

  • Pete Baker

    Sophistry, indeed.

    Yes. Basing the argument around single words rather than the totality is exactly that. Repeating it does not change it.”

    It’s a direct comparison of the semi-quote you supplied with the quote I referenced.

    “I’d prefer if you could reflect some current positions too, since it’s about now, but you know, anything would be a start.”

    I don’t blog to do what you’d prefer, ken.

    The topic includes the legacy of those [past] times.

  • Pete Baker

    Are you suggesting that the Book of revelation is not based on rationality? I think it is perfectly rational in the context of a man who was in captivity writing about what he thinks is important.

    I quote my interptetation of that rationality by suggesting that the beast that John saw on Patmos is indeed the leader of Sinn Fein. I use certain coincidences to back up my argument.

    The relevance is that you began a thread which questions those who have used violence as a tactic to change the world, the tactical use of human suffering. This is very relevant to my deliberations on Adams and also my deliberations on Adams are very relevant to the discussion.

  • Lorraine

    end of dialogue

    And I was just beginning to enjoy it.

    If my only sin is to be fundamentalist about Jesus teachings then I’m not sorry to say that I don’t particluarly care about your judgment on me.

    And Lorraine, I’ll do the judging around here, if you don’t mind. You’re just an amateur, though methinks it is not the first time you’ve sat in judgement of others. Do not judge.

  • Pete Baker

    “Are you suggesting that the Book of revelation is not based on rationality?”

    Hmm.. not quite. It’s that the Book of Revelation is a supernaturally based prophesy – see futuring.

    “I quote my interptetation of that rationality..”

    Ahh.. You see, that’s where you’re going wrong.

  • Pete Baker

    “I’ll do the judging around here, if you don’t mind.”

    Charming.. and, I’d suggest, blasphemous to many.

  • RepublicanStones

    John O’Connell i had a look at your page and the level of expenditure or lack thereof evident from the piss poor website you have, leads to me to one of either two conclusions, you are an extreme pisstaker, or as is more likely the case, nobody really gives a flying fuck about your opinions and wacky ideas, thus resulting in very poor sales of your books and donations, resulting in you becoming all the more delusional and embittered little fool you quite clearly are. Really be honest, your the guys who holds the bible reference at the football matches are’nt ya? I’ll bring ya a sambo next time im going.

  • kensei

    It’s a direct comparison of the semi-quote you supplied with the quote I referenced.

    Apparently no online transcript exists. The precise section I had was in a book now packed for moving. Closest I have is here:

    http://tinyurl.com/3wsbcq

    “Hatred and resentment of the army cannot sustain the war”. And you are still pulling on particular words. You’ll have to go to inference rather than particular words now to make your comparison. Are you allowed to do that, seeing as how I’m not?

    I don’t blog to do what you’d prefer, ken.

    Quite. Apparently supporting evidence or relevance is also optional.

    The topic includes the legacy of those [past] times.

    Really? Because could you direct me to the post where you have addressed anything about the legacy of anything? Because it isn’t this one.

    You could have also pulled any number of quotes form Guevara. How about:

    “If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.”?

    Maybe:

    “I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves.”?

    Or

    “In a revolution, one triumphs or dies (if it is a true revolution)”

    Relevant in certain ways to here and I could go on all day. Why that quote? What link does it have to Adams?

    Where’s the beef?

  • kensei

    Should also have added this, of course:

    At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.

  • RebublicanStones

    Nope. Not me.

    It’s a great website or I want the ten grand back.

  • Pete Baker

    ken

    “And you are still pulling on particular words. You’ll have to go to inference rather than particular words now to make your comparison. Are you allowed to do that, seeing as how I’m not?”

    You are free to make any argument any way you want to.

    As long as it’s coherent then it will be more persuasive.

  • Rory

    Why don’t we all just ignore John O’Bible and pretend he isn’t there and then he might really go away?

    Would the same tactic work if we ignored Pete’s seemingly endless attempts (using selective quotes from Che rather than St John) to brand Gerry Adams as the Antichrist, I wonder?

  • Rory

    Still here.

  • USA

    It’s probably best if we just ignore him on any of the threads he pops up on.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Garibaldy: “Socialist Cuba is built on a successful struggle against tyranny, followed by huge redistribution and the building of new social services that transformed the lives of the Cuban people beyond recognition. Which is how the Cubans themselves feel.”

    Sure they do… which is why they climb into small rickety boats and try to cross to Miami.

    Castro and Ernie broke just about as much as they fixed — Cuba was partially industrialized, with one of the highest per capita incomes in the Caribbean prior to the “struggle against tyranny.” Ernie, by his own admission, ruined the economy, limiting the benefit to the people.

    Garibaldy: “My comment on hypocrisy raised the issue of whether those who encourage violence through their actions but are too cowardly to carry it out are not as culpable as those who do.”

    Sure, because those personally killed by Ernie are less dead. Its a load of crap, Garibaldy — you’re grasping at straws. Yours are the same rationalizations used in the killing fields of Cambodia, the purges of the Soviet Union and the rest.

    Likewise, I think you will find that Bush volunteered to transition to an active unit in ‘Nam (the interceptors he was initially trained on were not used “in country”), but let’s not let the facts get in the way of your politically reliable froth — you like as not give credence to Rather’s sad efforts.

    Garibaldy: “Violence was a common response during warfare. But, and this is the difference with the likes of Pol Pot, not once the revolution had been secured.”

    Ah, but it is willingness to indulge in hatred that leads to the thousands of bodies used to stabilize the socialist state in Cuba. Ernie signed thousands of death warrants in the aftermath of the “successful” revolution, by his own admission. Likewise, Ernie committed murders that did nothing to “secure the revolution,” such as killing the children of prisoners who protested his time as chief kangaroo at La Cabana.

    To come back to the point, hatred is a useless luxury in war — hatred personalizes the killing and creates the likes of Ernie and his spiritual brothers, such as Beria. It is the parlor pinks who admire and rationalize the behavior of the likes of Ernie — try to tart up their killing as somehow being different from other killing. Ernie was a thug who killed his own men for not having sufficient fervor and enthusiasm for the revolution or committing minor crimes — petty theft. He admits these in his own diaries. I guess those murders would get in the way of the preferred narrative of the parlor pinks — those bodies need to remain beneath the foundations of the state.

  • kensei

    Pete

    As long as it’s coherent then it will be more persuasive.

    Are you suggesting I’ve been incoherent at any point? Are you also going to make any substantive points anytime soon?

    Still no answers. Why that quote? What is the specific link to Adams that pulls it above any number of other quotes from the very quotable Che Guevara?

  • Garibaldy

    Dread,

    Despite the problems, the vast majority of Cubans are still glad that the revolution happened. That is indisputable.

    And how do we get from me condemning people who encourage murder but don’t do it themselves to saying that this is the rationalisation for Pol Pot? Arrant nonsense, or to use your terms, a load of crap.

    As for Bush, he could have at any time joined the military proper and ensured he went to Vietnam and didn’t. So you’ll forgive me for not being impressed.

    As for the stuff about Che’s involvement in the revolutionary courts, or in enforcing discipline amongst his troops during a brutal civil war, I’ve already responded, but feel free to keep parroting the same thing. But perhaps you might consider whether numerically or proportionally the Cuban revolution was as violent as you like to make out by comparing it to some contemporary conflicts, or to the actions of the Latin American governments.

  • Steve

    dread
    Likewise, I think you will find that Bush volunteered to transition to an active unit in ‘Nam (the interceptors he was initially trained on were not used “in country”), but let’s not let the facts get in the way of your politically reliable froth

    Dread if you bothered to look you would find they intentionally trained bush to fly obsolete planes just so he couldn’t be sent “in country”. Its all well planned for the champagne crew

  • Robert Bingham

    The winged minions of Satan can be heard flapping their black wings overhead. The hooved gallop of lucifer can be heard in the distance, paced at a steady gallop, edging ever closer. The discomfort of the irish rebel can be heard, as the black devil milk of satan is being regurgitated as a result of their over indulgence when suckling on lucifers scaly black teet.

    The Protestant children of Ulster are forever under siege. We can do nothing but pray and believe that the Lord shall one day offer his most loyal children his sweet salvation. Grant us salvation Lord, Grant us your sweet salvation!!!!

    May the Lord God Save our most venerable majesty, Queen Elizabeth II