[Pants-of-dog]

Those are the common definitions which more or less go back unchanged to the ancient greeks who first coined the word, but leftists have taken the word and given it a subtly different definition(s). Leftists understand the word to mean as definition 2 except where "Anarchy" is a kind of egalitarian utopia.

If you deliberately ignore the differences between socialsim and anarchy, then the twp might be the same.

Every rebel wants to replace the system otherwise why rebel? Osama would replace "the system" with Islam or a purer kind of Islam, Che wanted to replace it with communism.

It is kind of beside the point arguing over their ideological differences because the reason OBL will get on the T-shirts of the most daring of young liberals is because he was an enemy of America as was Che. Che was a bigger threat by association because of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Cold War but in the end did little harm. OBL represents a lesser threat but actually managed more damage in the end because of 9/11. Either way they are both enemies of America and were both martyred by the US military.

Actually, bin Laden was an ally of the US before the US changed their relationship.

C. Guevara was not a US ally.

[QatzelOk]

Here you go.. One example of many.

Of course, it's funny to think someone can't think of any leftists around 1917.

There were probably more leftists and many more extreme leftists in 1917 than in 2017. That wasn't my point.

My point is that the constant transformations of the Middle East can be better understood as the dynamic between Foreign corporate colonialism and Local social egalitarianism.

A lot of the foreign-imposed leftism of the early and mid 20th was just a way of glorifying the non-stop hunt (by Western corporate and industrial interests) for secure supply chains. This is very different from the Local leftism that aimed to eradicate poverty in the region. We rarely hear about "eradicating poverty" in regards to local, independentist political movements because... we're supposed to think of social progress as a white man's burden. (Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders)

[Decky]

Actually, bin Laden was an ally of the US before the US changed their relationship.

C. Guevara was not a US ally.

You are blind. Bin Laden remained a US ally till the end of his days. Do you really think jet fuel can belt steel beams? The republicans wanted 9/11.

[Zagadka]

Bin Laden isn't dead. Gitmo is actually a hidden resort town.

[QatzelOk]

Satire marks the end of a civilization. So the above two posts are attempts at thread-destruction.

Let me try to repair the damage with this:

There is no time for more Che Gueverras. That icon of suburban-rebellion (the rebellion involves wearing an image of his face on a t-shirt or coffee mug) became a meme back when social justice was a real fight (by the poor) while the middle class watched from the safety of their bungalows.

But since then... the social justice groups have lost, capitalism won, and capitalism is in the process of destroying all our cultures and ecosystems.

The suburban living rooms of North America have no time for smug memorials to foreign "braves." Che's icon being worn by temporarily radical upper-class college students is as authentically progressive (in the justice sense of the word) as remembering the First Nations of North America by naming professional sports teams "Braves" and "Red skins."

The world has been milked to death - literally. You can't "find" rebellion in the posterized face of some dead radical anymore. Marketing has hit a brick wall. And so has fake rebellion.

[anarchist23]

I can remember when I read in the paper that Che Guevara had just been killed. It wasn't big news at the time.

[Finfinder]

Both bin Laden and Comandante Guevara were fighting against US neo-imperialism. In both cases, the US was using its economic and military power to subvert and/or destroy local communities in order to enrich itself. El Comandante and bin Laden both used militant action against the same enemy.

To me, that is the where the similarity ends.

C. Guevara was a socialist, while bin Laden was an Islamist.

C. Guevara tried to free Latin America while minimising US reprisals, while bin Laden deliberately antagonised the US into large scale reprisals.

C. Guevara had widespread community support, while bin Laden supported his network with the drug trade.

As for the t-shirt thing, Che was a good looking guy, while bin Laden was not. This matters far more than some vague anti-Americansim. Most of the developing world has anti-American sentiment, but we are not going to appear on a t-shirt just because of that.

not one mention of mass murder

[Pants-of-dog]

not one mention of mass murder

Sure, I can point out that both of them were inspired to take up arms against US intervention due to the mass murders carried out by the US and its allies.

That, I guess, is one more point of similarity. But I would point out that bin Laden was killing people at the behest of the US before he started killing US residents.

[Finfinder]

Sure, I can point out that both of them were inspired to take up arms against US intervention due to the mass murders carried out by the US and its allies.

That, I guess, is one more point of similarity. But I would point out that bin Laden was killing people at the behest of the US before he started killing US residents.

Sounds like you already have the Bin Laden T shirt.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sounds like you already have the Bin Laden T shirt.

Sure. Whatever.

Now, do you have any evidence that people are going to respect bin Laden in the same way as they do Guevara? Other than your feelings?

[anarchist23]

I can remember when I read in the paper that Che Guevara had just been killed. It wasn't big news at the time.

The press coverage of the death of Bin Laden was of a different magnitude.




The Guardian
11 October 1967: The death of Che Guevara | From the Guardian ...
Richard Gott's report on the death of Che Guevara (9 October 1967).

[Finfinder]

Sure. Whatever.

Now, do you have any evidence that people are going to respect bin Laden in the same way as they do Guevara? Other than your feelings?

What do you mean people or is it your feelings that all people feel one way or another about the two.

[Pants-of-dog]

What do you mean people or is it your feelings that all people feel one way or another about the two.

Well, by "people", I mean those the OP thinks will wear bin Laden t-shirts for the same reason as they wear Che Guevara t-shirts.

I assume that there are diverse opinions about both Che Guevara and bin Laden.

Now, can you please answer my question?

Do you have any evidence that people are going to respect bin Laden in the same way as they do Guevara? Other than your feelings?

[Finfinder]

Well, by "people", I mean those the OP thinks will wear bin Laden t-shirts for the same reason as they wear Che Guevara t-shirts.

I assume that there are diverse opinions about both Che Guevara and bin Laden.

Now, can you please answer my question?

Do you have any evidence that people are going to respect bin Laden in the same way as they do Guevara? Other than your feelings?

Why I never argued that? I just pointed out your description did not include that they were both mass murderers.

[Pants-of-dog]

If being a mass murderer were all it took to get on a t-shirt, then POTUS t-shirts would be all the rage.

[Decky]

[SolarCross]

If being a mass murderer were all it took to get on a t-shirt, then POTUS t-shirts would be all the rage.

I thought they are?!

[Pants-of-dog]

Then I guess we have reached the logical conclusion that Che Guevara is exactly like bin Laden who is exactly like GW Bush?

[SolarCross]

Then I guess we have reached the logical conclusion that Che Guevara is exactly like bin Laden who is exactly like GW Bush?

Well they are all soldiers (and therefore mass murderers from a hostile perspective) of one sort or another (I know technically POTUS is not a soldier but civilian government is an oxymoron and anyway being at least a notional commander-in-chief of the US armed forces makes one an honorary soldier and one only has to rubber stamp one cruise missile strike to become an actual one).

The only serious difference is on whose side they are on..

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, if we ignore all the vast differences between all these people, then they are the same!

While I am certain that our less politically savvy t-shirt wearers might agree with you, I highly doubt most others will.

Apparently you believe that "liberals" will wear bin Laden and Bush t-shirts because they love soldiers so much!