--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > In reality, Che had no compunction about murdering, in cold blood, the common man and the disadvantaged. > > > > > > Is that fact based? My understanding is that Che's personal acts of killing were mostly limited to the period of 19591963 when he was Commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison where he had responsibilities for trials and executions of many former Batista regime officials, including members of the secret police. The account of the number executed varies -- some sources say 156 people, others estimate as many as 500. Some say that he signed execution orders for some of the above without trials. But while justice may have been short-served a bit, the prisoners were hardly the "the common man and the disadvantaged" -- they were the henchmen of a bloody repressive regime. As far as "killing in cold blood", -- well I guess most prision executions after a revolution are not pretty, but I am not aware of evicence that they were gruesome. I guess you are being literal and in that sense most the killings in Irag are also "in cold blood". > > > 1) Many were children that he executed;
In your cites, I can find no evidence of this. I assume you are mixing up Castro's autrocities with those specifically under Che's control. Che had authority over executions La Cabana Fortress prison. I am unaware of any other period where he had such control. Can you cite any, specifically? That was the underlying point of my original post. You seem to equate the actions of Castro with those of Che, not a useful blurring IMO, when one is trying to understand Che -- the good, bad and the ugly. You seem to hold on to the myth that Che and Castro ruled Cuba on near equal terms. It just is not so. Che had quite limited authority vis a vis all of Cuba. And left in 1963 because of such constraints. > 3) "In cold blood" well, the period that you cite -- 4 years -- is > more than enough time to establish a tribunal. My point about "in cold blood" is an appeal to emotion, an oft use logical fallacy. When we read the executions were "in cold blood", I guess we are supposed to say, "well that does it, in cold blood, well that totaly evil PIG", where as I suppose we would feel better, perhaps even kind of warm and fuzzy towards Che if we learned that the prisioners were executed "in warm blood". The point being, the words "in cold blood" have no meaning in fact, they are simply a rhetorical device to manipulate the emotions of the naive. I am guilty, unconsciouly to doing the same, but its helpful, to me at least, to point out such logical gaps to tighten ones ability to read whats on the page, and to write more clearly. > > > > Though Che became a leader in the ragtag band, initially composed > of only a handful of guerillas, along with Castro, that against huge odds, did succeed in overthrowing Batista -- by all accounts a > quite corrupt guy whose policies harmed the vast majority of Cubans. > You really need to read up on Batista and his regime. Cuba had a > standard of living which rivalled many European nations and was at > or near the top in terms of Latin America. They were a nation in > which Europeans emigrated to. I should and will (read up on Bastista Cuba). The wage levels in your article were interesting. However, I would like to see, and will look for, corroboration from other sources, given yours has a clearly right slant. (e.g., under Breaking News: "Cindy Sheahon Desecrates Sones Grave." Sound more like a rightish POV editorial than "Breaking News" to me. ) > Maybe it was repressive but compared to Cuba today, it was > Disneyland...plus, unlike Che and Fidel, when Batista threw Castro > into prison, he didn't kill him. Che and Fidel killed virtually > anyone that was a threat to them. Again you appear to be mixing up and equating the historic Che with Castro. > > > But after the revolution succeeded, Castro fearing the charisma of his guerilla-band brother, kept Che at a distance to himself and the major Cuban power centers. After 1963, Che focused on planning for revolutions in South America and Africa and had even less to do with Cuban policy. > > > ...and thank god the CIA killed him...wonder how much havoc he would > have wreaked had he not been killed... Or some corrupt banana republic dictators might hve been overthrown. > > So again, are your assertions about Che based in face? If so, > please share with us. Or are you simply generalizing to the whole Cuban revolution? > Check out the following on Fidel and some on Che: > > http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18739 > > > The following is mostly on Che: > > http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12467 Thanks. I read them. They seem to substantiate my original point of the original and this post: you appear to simply be generalizing the whole Cuban revolution and attributting such to Che's specific historical action. Blurring and/or equating Che and Castro. They were different men. And did different things. And had different levels of authority to do things. I am not trying to defend Che, I am simply trying to understnd him, separating the man from the myth. Both the leftist myths and the rightist myths. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
