Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought that was just the adjective.

I guess not.

http://duallytruck.org/

Mannahnin wrote:Concur. Though I think it's spelled "dualey", to refer to the dual tires on each side at the back.

We always pronounced 'em "dooley" so I am going with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I thought that was just the adjective.

I guess not.

http://duallytruck.org/

Wow, learn something every day.

A Town Called Malus wrote:I can't think of anything Bin Laden stood for that didn't involve killing people.

Then you don't really understand what we are up against.

If you think this looks odd, then apply that same logic to your self.


He is popular in other parts of the world becuase, like Che, he is seen as the scrappy underdog who fought the West.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Che said that violence should only be a last resort when all diplomatic and democratic options had failed.

People say all sorts of things, but their actions speak to where the truth lies. He was more than happy to apply violence if he didn't get what he wanted. There are people that won't, and never have, killed anyone to see their political goals met, but you won't wear their t-shirt.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Bin Laden used violence as his first resort and targeted civilians.

He would tell you, like your buddy Che, that it was a last resort. It also shows how little you understand of OBL. He also pretended to be a man of peace forced into an untenable position where he had no choice but to start killing people.

A Town Called Malus wrote:He and Che are nothing alike.

Except for, you know, being alike. The difference between the two is that you like some of Che's ideas.

A Town Called Malus wrote:at least had the semblance of law, it wasn't just Che shooting random people.

That is just a load of crap from the beginning to the end. Oh, and word to the wise, you are showing your ingnorance again. While terrorist attacks, much like Che's, don't always know each person by heart, they aren't random. The Twin Towers were chosen very specifically, as was the Pentagon.

A Town Called Malus wrote:I don't distance myself from Che's questionable actions.

No, you delude yourself of the truth of his actions and rationalize it.

A Town Called Malus wrote:his military campaigns he never executed prisoners of war and he always treated the enemy wounded as well as he did his own men, which is more than can be said for what Batistas forces did to revolutionaries they captured.

"His military" was a military in the same sense as the Taliban, Al Qeada, and the Sandinistas. I suppose the Taliban would be the most appropriate becuase like Che's terrorist, sorry, guerilla fighters, also were able to succeed. Everything after that sounds like you got it out of a pamphlet being handed out on May Day.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Calling Che a murderer is akin to calling every man who administers a lethal injection a murderer or every soldier a murderer.

If you want to remove all context, sure you can make that argument. It doesn't hold up well, but you can make it.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Che did not pass judgement on those who were executed, that was done by a separate tribunal and the majority of the Cuban public supported the executions at the time.

I love the idea that a tribunal set up by radical terrorist group that has seized power is fair and just. I'm sure when the Taliban set up shop in Afghanistan they were fair and just as well.

Che is an interesting historical figure and certainly worth discussing, but wearing on a T-Shirt like he's a celebrity while trying to distance yourself from the reality of his actions comes across as both incredibly naive and disingenuous. You can't promote peaceful change and violent overthrow at the same time.

This seems oddly relevant:

Thats excellent.

Agreed I want to just smash people like that, Hulk style

Ahtman wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:I can't think of anything Bin Laden stood for that didn't involve killing people.

Then you don't really understand what we are up against.

If you think this looks odd, then apply that same logic to your self.

Spoiler:

He is popular in other parts of the world becuase, like Che, he is seen as the scrappy underdog who fought the West.

Unlike Che, he never made any attempts to bring about reform through peaceful means.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Che said that violence should only be a last resort when all diplomatic and democratic options had failed.

People say all sorts of things, but their actions speak to where the truth lies. He was more than happy to apply violence if he didn't get what he wanted. There are people that won't, and never have, killed anyone to see their political goals met, but you won't wear their t-shirt.

He was prepared to use violence. Just like the founding fathers of your country were prepared to use violence. Just like the rebels in Syria and Egypt were prepared to use violence. Sure he's no Gandhi but Gandhi's non-violent protests would not have worked against the Batista regime. Would non-violent protest on its own have brought down Gaddafi? Probably not. Non-violence only works when the thing you are against cares about international perception of it, like the Civil Rights movement in the USA and Gandhi's independence movement in India.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Bin Laden used violence as his first resort and targeted civilians.

He would tell you, like your buddy Che, that it was a last resort. It also shows how little you understand of OBL. He also pretended to be a man of peace forced into an untenable position where he had no choice but to start killing people.

Did OBL ever try to negotiate with the USA before launching the 9/11 attacks? No? Then violence was not the last resort.
Also, unlike my buddy Che, he targeted civilians. The Pentagon was a military target but there were no military personnel in the Twin Towers. The attack on them served no purpose but to spread fear into the population and to kill thousands of innocent people.

A Town Called Malus wrote:He and Che are nothing alike.

Except for, you know, being alike. The difference between the two is that you like some of Che's ideas.

Except for, you know, being completely different. The similarity is you don't like any of Che's ideas.

A Town Called Malus wrote:at least had the semblance of law, it wasn't just Che shooting random people.

That is just a load of crap from the beginning to the end. Oh, and word to the wise, you are showing your ingnorance again. While terrorist attacks, much like Che's, don't always know each person by heart, they aren't random. The Twin Towers were chosen very specifically, as was the Pentagon.

Che did not use terrorism tactics. He never worked to promote terror in the populace. The Cuban revolutionary forces never purposefully attacked non-military targets. They didn't bomb schools or churches. They fought, in uniform, against a clearly defined enemy, the Cuban military under the command of Batista and his generals.

A Town Called Malus wrote:I don't distance myself from Che's questionable actions.

No, you delude yourself of the truth of his actions and rationalize it.

The truth of his actions is that he oversaw the appeals of prisoners charged with war crimes, facing the death penalty. That he led a group of men in combat in Cuba, the Congo and Bolivia and practiced a strict code of conduct with regards to the treatment of the enemy, the local population and his own forces.

A Town Called Malus wrote:his military campaigns he never executed prisoners of war and he always treated the enemy wounded as well as he did his own men, which is more than can be said for what Batistas forces did to revolutionaries they captured.

"His military" was a military in the same sense as the Taliban, Al Qeada, and the Sandinistas. I suppose the Taliban would be the most appropriate becuase like Che's terrorist, sorry, guerilla fighters, also were able to succeed. Everything after that sounds like you got it out of a pamphlet being handed out on May Day.

No it was not. The cuban revolutionary forces under Castro all wore uniforms, with a set chain of command. They were a recognisable military force, the Taliban is not. As for getting it out of a May Day pamphlet, try again. It's actually from his own words in "Guerilla Warfare", "Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War", "The Congo Diaries" and the "Bolivian Diaries". Are you trying to deny that Batistas army committed war crimes? Or that Che did not practice what he preached in regards to treatment of wounded enemy soldiers and prisoners of war?

A Town Called Malus wrote:Calling Che a murderer is akin to calling every man who administers a lethal injection a murderer or every soldier a murderer.

If you want to remove all context, sure you can make that argument. It doesn't hold up well, but you can make it.

What context? These people were found guilty by a court of war crimes and executed. If they were not guilty then it is not the fault of the executioner but of the court itself. Apart from that Che only ever killed in combat and never after the enemy had surrendered.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Che did not pass judgement on those who were executed, that was done by a separate tribunal and the majority of the Cuban public supported the executions at the time.

I love the idea that a tribunal set up by radical terrorist group that has seized power is fair and just. I'm sure when the Taliban set up shop in Afghanistan they were fair and just as well.

The Cuban Revolutionary forces were not a radical terrorist group. They did not use terror tactics to achieve their goals and never directed any attacks at civilians. The Taliban, on the other hand, did.

Then lets look at differences between the Cuban government and the Taliban when they were in power. In Cuba there was a huge education and health drive which has resulted in Cuba having a better adult literacy rate than both the UK and the USA. The Taliban on the other hand went on a huge anti-education drive and kept its people in poverty and under-educated for god knows how many years. So that's pretty much the polar opposite.

Che is an interesting historical figure and certainly worth discussing, but wearing on a T-Shirt like he's a celebrity while trying to distance yourself from the reality of his actions comes across as both incredibly naive and disingenuous. You can't promote peaceful change and violent overthrow at the same time.

I repeat, I am not trying to distance myself. I believe that capital punishment is wrong but that if you face an oppressive regime which cannot be defeated by peaceful means then you should be prepared to fight it with violent means in order to bring about change.

Peaceful change is better, no argument, but it is also not always possible. When it is impossible you have a choice, you either give up or you fight.

Your rose coloured history glasses, while pretty, betray your bias. For instance:

A Town Called Malus wrote:The similarity is you don't like any of Che's ideas.

Find anywhere in the thread where I said I didn't like any of his ideas, outside of his use of killing to meet political desires. Also, find where I said the US was perfect and without room for criticism.

You won't find them becuase they don't exist. You are falling into the lazy minds trap that if someone disagrees with you on one thing, they must disagree with you on all things. I can find Che to be a poor role model while thinking that Universal Health Care may not be a bad idea while also being critical of the governments use of force in The War on Terror, or War on Drugs for the matter.

When you wear the shirt you are saying that you are ok with advocating violent overthrow. If you aren't you should wear a different shirt, if you are, at least admit it. You can't have it both ways. I personally don't believe in killing other people because all my political ideals are not catered to. I'll wear a MLK T-Shirt or Ghandi shirt before I wear a Che shirt.

I also can't help be think you, essentially, calling me a conservative American gave at least a few people on the board a huge belly laugh.

Che...OBL....doesn't matter...you still have cooling bodies. I for one have no issue applying 9lbs squeeze to either

Mannahnin wrote:The maltese cross is similar, but comes to four points in the center, and the ends are V shaped.

How dare the Maltese try to rip off the Black Templar's chapter icon!

Ahtman wrote:Your rose coloured history glasses, while pretty, betray your bias. For instance:

A Town Called Malus wrote:The similarity is you don't like any of Che's ideas.

Find anywhere in the thread where I said I didn't like any of his ideas, outside of his use of killing to meet political desires. Also, find where I said the US was perfect and without room for criticism.

You won't find them becuase they don't exist. You are falling into the lazy minds trap that if someone disagrees with you on one thing, they must disagree with you on all things. I can find Che to be a poor role model while thinking that Universal Health Care may not be a bad idea while also being critical of the governments use of force in The War on Terror, or War on Drugs for the matter.

When you wear the shirt you are saying that you are ok with advocating violent overthrow. If you aren't you should wear a different shirt, if you are, at least admit it. You can't have it both ways. I personally don't believe in killing other people because all my political ideals are not catered to. I'll wear a MLK T-Shirt or Ghandi shirt before I wear a Che shirt.

I also can't help be think you, essentially, calling me a conservative American gave at least a few people on the board a huge belly laugh.

Fair enough and I apologise for any assumptions I have made.

I am OK with advocating violent overthrow but, as I have said, only as a last resort and only when there is absolutely no chance of peaceful protest succeeding. Until that point is met then it is not justified. So in a country like North Korea where there is pretty much no chance of peaceful protest succeeding I would support an armed uprising (admittedly the chances of that happening are pretty much nil with the brainwashing that happens in North Korean schools).

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Your rose coloured history glasses, while pretty, betray your bias. For instance:

A Town Called Malus wrote:The similarity is you don't like any of Che's ideas.

Find anywhere in the thread where I said I didn't like any of his ideas, outside of his use of killing to meet political desires. Also, find where I said the US was perfect and without room for criticism.

You won't find them becuase they don't exist. You are falling into the lazy minds trap that if someone disagrees with you on one thing, they must disagree with you on all things. I can find Che to be a poor role model while thinking that Universal Health Care may not be a bad idea while also being critical of the governments use of force in The War on Terror, or War on Drugs for the matter.

When you wear the shirt you are saying that you are ok with advocating violent overthrow. If you aren't you should wear a different shirt, if you are, at least admit it. You can't have it both ways. I personally don't believe in killing other people because all my political ideals are not catered to. I'll wear a MLK T-Shirt or Ghandi shirt before I wear a Che shirt.

I also can't help be think you, essentially, calling me a conservative American gave at least a few people on the board a huge belly laugh.

Fair enough and I apologise for any assumptions I have made.

I am OK with advocating violent overthrow but, as I have said, only as a last resort and only when there is absolutely no chance of peaceful protest succeeding. Until that point is met then it is not justified. So in a country like North Korea where there is pretty much no chance of peaceful protest succeeding I would support an armed uprising (admittedly the chances of that happening are pretty much nil with the brainwashing that happens in North Korean schools).

Thats too easy. Would you support armed insurrection in the US to meet your goals?

Frazzled wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Your rose coloured history glasses, while pretty, betray your bias. For instance:

A Town Called Malus wrote:The similarity is you don't like any of Che's ideas.

Find anywhere in the thread where I said I didn't like any of his ideas, outside of his use of killing to meet political desires. Also, find where I said the US was perfect and without room for criticism.

You won't find them becuase they don't exist. You are falling into the lazy minds trap that if someone disagrees with you on one thing, they must disagree with you on all things. I can find Che to be a poor role model while thinking that Universal Health Care may not be a bad idea while also being critical of the governments use of force in The War on Terror, or War on Drugs for the matter.

When you wear the shirt you are saying that you are ok with advocating violent overthrow. If you aren't you should wear a different shirt, if you are, at least admit it. You can't have it both ways. I personally don't believe in killing other people because all my political ideals are not catered to. I'll wear a MLK T-Shirt or Ghandi shirt before I wear a Che shirt.

I also can't help be think you, essentially, calling me a conservative American gave at least a few people on the board a huge belly laugh.

Fair enough and I apologise for any assumptions I have made.

I am OK with advocating violent overthrow but, as I have said, only as a last resort and only when there is absolutely no chance of peaceful protest succeeding. Until that point is met then it is not justified. So in a country like North Korea where there is pretty much no chance of peaceful protest succeeding I would support an armed uprising (admittedly the chances of that happening are pretty much nil with the brainwashing that happens in North Korean schools).

Thats too easy. Would you support armed insurrection in the US to meet your goals?

No, because you have a democratic system and therefore there is the possibility of accomplishing those goals peacefully.

Whats with all this peace and lovey dovey talk on DAKKA lately? Sheesh, looks like its up to me to bring the balance of order back









There.....much better

King.....where's my watercannon?

Santa is bringing it...
Summer Santa...

Way to go Purps, your image is broken


Thats for you Jihadin

you rock King 8)

Not broken for me...
Very odd...
Something has gone awry...

Wasn't that armed insurrection in the USA called the revolution or the civil war, and lots of people supported that

And we're off to the race

Ahtman wrote:I also can't help be think you, essentially, calling me a conservative American gave at least a few people on the board a huge belly laugh.

I won't say that there was a belly-laugh, but I definitely let loose with a bemused chuckle.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:And yet, the funny thing is, people walk around with the hammer and sickle on t-shirts, Chairman Mao on t-shirts, and of course, goold old Che G, but nobody bats an eyelid.

Maybe there is a left-wing conspiracy

People who wear Che shirts and Hammer & Sickle shirts do so because they like the romance of the promise of such a system. They're stupid for not realising how badly these regimes failed in those promises, but that's all it is, stupidity.

Whereas the Nazis delivered exactly what they said they were going to deliver. They didn't descend into hate filled racism, that was their very reason for existing in the first place. Anyone who takes up that symbol now is embracing that racism.

Neither the stupidity in wearing a Che t-shirt, nor the racism in wearing a swastika is good, but they are also very different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:He and Che are nothing alike. The people who were executed after the Cuban revolution were all put on trial. You might argue that those trials were not entirely fair and you'd probably be right but it at least had the semblance of law, it wasn't just Che shooting random people.

Probably weren't fair? Seriously? They were kangaroo courts, and while they were certainly popular with the Cuban people at the time that does not make them just.

Calling Che a murderer is akin to calling every man who administers a lethal injection a murderer or every soldier a murderer. Che did not pass judgement on those who were executed, that was done by a separate tribunal and the majority of the Cuban public supported the executions at the time.

No, seriously, read about Che's actions during the revolution. He routinely executed revolutionary soldiers suspected of treason or cowardice.

Comparing him to bin Laden is typical internet silliness, but don't think he wasn't a brutal killer.

He routinely executed revolutionary soldiers suspected of treason or cowardice

.

Want to point out...either you misread or misinformed but the key word that stands out......suspected

Ahtman wrote:He is popular in other parts of the world becuase, like Che, he is seen as the scrappy underdog who fought the West.

Hitler is popular in the same way in India, where among the group of people educated enough to be interested in world events, but not educated enough to know very much about them, he's seen as a man of action. Mein Kampf continues to sell there in pretty good numbers.

I'm not a fan of Hitler or the Nazi party. Off the top of my head there's like 2 version of Hitler. Hitler who rose Germany out of their situation and should have left it at that. Then there's Hitler who we all know right after he invaded Poland which pretty much went down hill from there.

A Town Called Malus wrote:I am OK with advocating violent overthrow but, as I have said, only as a last resort and only when there is absolutely no chance of peaceful protest succeeding. Until that point is met then it is not justified. So in a country like North Korea where there is pretty much no chance of peaceful protest succeeding I would support an armed uprising (admittedly the chances of that happening are pretty much nil with the brainwashing that happens in North Korean schools).

The idea that everyone in North Korea is entirely brainwashed is basically a myth. There's an enormous amount of black market trade across the border into China. North Koreans know the government line is a lie.

It's just that exactly that influences people's thinking is really complicated. They can reject part of the government lie, while still believing other parts that make it easier for them to go to work everyday for that same government. And even if they reject all of it, exactly what do they do about - keep their heads down and look after their families, same as people have done in every despotic regime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Want to point out...either you misread or misinformed but the key word that stands out......suspected

Uh, no, I wrote that word because it's exactly what I meant to write. People were accused of treason or cowardice, and he ordered their execution, and sometimes shot them himself. It's why his own army was afraid of him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:I'm not a fan of Hitler or the Nazi party. Off the top of my head there's like 2 version of Hitler. Hitler who rose Germany out of their situation and should have left it at that. Then there's Hitler who we all know right after he invaded Poland which pretty much went down hill from there.

While Germany did recover under Hitler's early chancellorship, the idea that until that point he was doing just fine is kind of the Fisher Price view of politics. A lot of the growth was the result of programs put into place before he came to power, especially the road network. Second up, the growth he did achieve was through stuff that wasn't sustainable, it was real house of cards stuff. And long before the invasion of Poland he was a collosal dick to minorities in Germany, as well as to anyone that spoke out against him (read about what happened to the Austrian government and military officers that spoke out during annexation).

Basically Hitler was the head of a band of murderous thugs, who had to keep expanding and grabbing more power, not only because of the nature of who they were, but because if they ever stopped grabbing power the whole thing was certain to collapse in on itself.

Damn Nazis!

A Town Called Malus wrote:Non-violence only works when the thing you are against cares about international perception of it, like the Civil Rights movement in the USA and Gandhi's independence movement in India.

Not true. Non-violence only works when the regime isn't willing to kill you, or when there are simply too many of you to kill. International perception might factor in, but it doesn't have to.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Did OBL ever try to negotiate with the USA before launching the 9/11 attacks? No? Then violence was not the last resort.

No, but he did negotiate with the Sauds.

Radiation wrote:Damn Nazis!

Thanks to the Bastards, I cant help but pronounce Nazi the same way Lt Aldo Rain did How would you spell it that way anyways? Nat-zee? Nayt-zee? Something like that