..... a merciless revolution exporter taken for a symbol by mistaken people, the very young exempted.
in that direction as repeated attempts at reform and civil disobedience fail. Iranians will have to make that decision before a war or faustian bargain preempt it.
I'd start shooting, and philosophers will write later.
There is no other way. noway!
If my body dies, let my body die, but do not let my country die.
The link I gave is misleading in that sense (among others!)
You don't set your goal to be violent or non-violent. You set your goal to achieve something clear and tangible. You try to avoid violence, not as a matter of ideology, but as a matter of good politics. But at the end of the day, what defines what you do is your well defined goal. Not how you do it. The 'how' thing defines itself in dynamics of struggle.
It remains to be seen whether or not non-violence, as epitomized by Gandhi will be the path for future generations. Or we'll revert back to 50's style guerrilla violence, albeit in an evolved form like Network and Grid attacks of Matrix genre.
Take a look at Greece and Thailand where the problems are econo-centric. And there is talk of a global discontent and uprising. And Iran, Iraq, central Asian republics (ala banana) where it is much more than just economics, at least domestically.
The presumption is that violence creates bastard offsprings and it certainly gave us doozies in Iran, so Gandhi style approach that created India is presumed most effective. Gandhi's approach worked in a specific context and historic juncture with very specific players. Indeed even the Pakistani portion of that turned out to be a miserable failure (islam had much to do with it but that's not all). But equivocation can only go so far in real life, especially when it is about guiding future activity. There is certainly more circumstantial and empirical evidence that we are moving towards a more disparate and violent world given the resource constraints and no sign that big powers and those in control of resources and 'laws' will be budging an inch. What do you do?.
I suggested Fidel is less than a solid character. I do have my opinion on Che but have not divulged it here. You are obviously a fan of Che and I can respect that for many reasons. You are also highly against the 'western' footprint and that is also understandable and I referenced it as well. But your biased should not extend into extrapolating things that I did not say or suggest. Lets focus on this interesting topic on a very interesting person and 'again' relevant figure.
How does that diminish the character of a man called Che?
South America, Indochina, South-East Asia, now Middle East.
everyone one is evil but US of A.
This one is really really good Saman!
On The 40th Anniversary Of His Assassination:
beyond doubt. But in politics there is so much proof you can get. Also, Che was many things to many people. He is deeply adored or hated in various corners including Cuba. He was a true believer and revolutionary in the cause of social 'justice' and in that path he committed braveries and also many crimes. The context, however, is important. America was dominating the continent and creating social mayhem in all of latin America even those with true democratic leaders like Arbenz that ended up being sacrificed for UFC in most brutal way possible. In that context Marxism mythology and Socialism specially backed by USSR weapons and support was an appealing option.
Che's move to Bolivia where he ended up taking his last breath was an indication of his dedication to 'cause'. Right or wrong. While Fidel showed his true nature by giving away his closest compatriot and of all people to the American 'capitalist pigs'.
History has funny twists. The period of prosperity and growth for most countries including Iran were the few decades of cold war that provided some protection and respite. And Fidel was a fan of Mossadegh.
What moral grounds do we stand on? except colonizing entire world for their natural resources, discriminating within our own boarders for color of skin/religion/language/ethnicity/ for being - black, Indian, Mexican, Middle Eastern, Chinese, Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Arab, Iranian, .......... - to judge a person like Che?
West has absolutely no moral standing to be judge of anything.
One of the branches of the freedom of expression is the freedom of drawing parallels. But one has to be cautious about placing a true revolutionary in the same category as a hitman.
As you may know, some people blame Fidel Castro for what led to his untimely death.
of course there are many differences between safavi and che. however, both were ideological and inspirational mentors to two revolutionary leaders: khomeini and castro. both safavi and che have been romanticized because of this background. and both today's cuba and iran are the results of the diealisms that these creatures peddled.
i have many cuban friends (in the u.s.) (most of them did not come from wealthy families) that despised che as much as fidel. i thought of the parallel of safavi and che when i was discussing politics with my cuban advisor in my old school.
"Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black
population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men — how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom?"
Che - speech to the 19th General Assembly of the United Nations in New York City by Cuban representative Che Guevara on December 11, 1964.
Dr. mengela was a medical doctor too, but his degree didn't stop him from experimenting on people.
Che and Navab safavi were two killers, one killed to spread islam nab mohammadi, the other to spread communism. Beside ordering executions of people for silly reasons such as they were wealthy, in one case che particpated in executing a person himself, so much for swearing the medical oath!
If there is a hell out there some where, may both roth in there along with Khomeini!
I am not sure if you are aware that Navab sfavi (the muslim assasin) is 180 degrees out of phase with Che, the communist revolutionary in many ways. Let me lis t a few; Che was ardent communist and anti religion kind of guy. He was a Dr of medicine, he became an international icon of frevolutionary communism to this day. I visited Cuba a few years back for holiday, and was amazed how much he is loved and admired, even by section of population who openly complain about the socialist system in Cuba. BTW, Che was not even cuban, he was argentinean.
Now contrast above with Navab, do I need to say more???!!!
Che, more than what he was or did is what he represents. He is very well known globally but in name or abstract. I have seen people of different age or political persuasion wear it. Indicating they don't know much about him, or perhaps they like him because of his rebellion against his own class and mindset. For all we know if he survived to today, he'll probably be running a successful HMO and getting richer than his parents. Much like the flower children and vietnam anti-war protesters became ruthless corporate captains of today.
As an early symbol of anti-imperialism, rebellion against the matrix we are stuck with, and seems we can do little about, I think he will persist. However, Saman's drawing is an accurate representation of what Che's image has become more than anything else; A hollow commercial success to go along with indiana jones image.
who said cubans love che? maybe fidel and his cronies likes che. but the cubans i know hate fidel (ayatollah) and che (safavi).
No way Iranians admire Safavi as Cubans admire El Che. Safavi is just a highway in Tehran.
this is funny. the commercialization of che's image. che is to cubans, as navab safavi is to iranians. saman, you should have safavi's image with a sandis t shirt and an allah logo on his amameh. :)
French Sketch Les nuls -Yogurt Ad with Alain Chabat :