Misguided Heroes.

Sir Osis of Liver.

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Which Armstrong?Lance Or Neil

Stretch

Karl Stein

Dimithy wrote: »

I'm guessing you'll only vilify one side though?

Afaia there was only one side that was propping up dictators, funding death squads, and brutally crushing democratic movements; this is the side that the lens of condemnation should focus on first. Any reaction against such murderous brutality is a footnote rather than the main act.

mightdomighty

"Tommy Robinson" English Defence league leader

Mardy Bum

mightdomighty wrote: »

"Tommy Robinson" English Defence league leader

Only idiots would describe him as a hero in the first place.

krudler

Duggy747 wrote: »

Mother Teresa may have helped people but that certainly doesn't raise her above criticism for how she went about it, which was terribly misguided. Especially when you consider the sheer amount of money that was involved.

Wouldnt be very religious if money wasnt involved.

The_Kew_Tour

Messi.

Sergeant

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Afaia there was only one side that was propping up dictators, funding death squads, and brutally crushing democratic movements; this is the side that the lens of condemnation should focus on first. Any reaction against such murderous brutality is a footnote rather than the main act.

Why not focus on both the outcomes of the interactions in 1950's and 1960's South American politics? We have to avoid questioning the utter barbarity of far-left ideologies that were present there as well? That continue to deny citizens of Cuba many of the things we take for granted in a social democracy like Ireland.

How is modern-day socialism working out in South America at the moment?

nervous_twitch

MYOB wrote: »

There's a book about it, as well as a lot of forum posts. US obsession has overwritten a lot of it. Guy is an egotist.

Basically he had the altitude to glide the plane in to Teterboro Airport, a large but private only airport in NJ. But he refused and insisted on going in to the river, something relatively un-done. Showboating with peoples lives and a multi-million dollar plane.

Wow; I never bought into the Miracle Man agenda that the media was pushing, but I've listened to the recordings from the Cockpit and I always thought he was really stuck for somewhere to land. So did he devise it so that he could land in water? I thought that kind of maneuver was pretty much unprecedented for an Airbus and any kind of survival was against the odds. Is this conspiracy theory or does it have any real credentials?

mightdomighty

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Only idiots would describe him as a hero in the first place.

Agreed, I took the OPs use of the term "hero" to be tongue in cheek

BillyMitchel

Sergeant wrote: »

There are many examples of people throughout history who are seen as heroes by people who admire what they did. From Caesar to Armstrong.

Yet they turn out to be fundamentally flawed.

For example, I remember watching Motorcycle Diaries about the life of Che Guevara. It was a wonderfully evocative piece of cinema. I then did some reading about the chap. Turns out he was rather different than the romanticised portrayal shown in the movie. A cold-hearted and vindictive murderer. Over 4000 people died without fair trial in prison camps he administered. He was personally responsible for acts of torture and death.

Yet he has managed to become a poster-child and an iconic figure planted on many a cheap sweatshop manufactured t-shirt.

Any other examples of people who you feel don't deserve the badge of 'hero' that has been placed upon them?

It's not about his life, its about how he saw S.A as he was traveling through all the different countries, way before he picked up a gun.

Proof? and not some pro American/cuban/miami politician. Of course people died but hey guess what kiddo that's what usually happens in a war. Do you have any idea how bad the U.S backed Batista regime was in Cuba?

Jon Lee Anderson, author of the definitive biography on Che:

"To this I must point out that, while Che did indeed execute people [an episode I have gone into at length in my book] I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed 'an innocent'. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder. I should add that my research spanned five years, and included anti-Castro Cubans among the Cuban-American exile community in Miami and elsewhere."

Hardly his fault now is it and do you really think he would of endorsed it if he was alive?


If you love Freedom, then you love Che Guevara. N.Mandela

L1011

nervous_twitch wrote: »

Wow; I never bought into the Miracle Man agenda that the media was pushing, but I've listened to the recordings from the Cockpit and I always thought he was really stuck for somewhere to land. So did he devise it so that he could land in water? I thought that kind of maneuver was pretty much unprecedented for an Airbus and any kind of survival was against the odds. Is this conspiracy theory or does it have any real credentials?

Well, he didn't put the birds there, so you can't really say he devised it, but he had very much decided he was going to the river despite many other qualified people telling him to go to TEB.

Karl Stein

Sergeant wrote: »

Why not focus on both the outcomes of the interactions in 1950's and 1960's South American politics?

What interactions? What interactions in S.Am. were untainted by US brutality and terrorism?

We have to avoid questioning the utter barbarity of far-left ideologies that were present there as well?

No. Barbarity should be condemned regardless of what ideology underpins it. 'Left wing' barbarity in S.Am. was primarily a reaction to US terrorism.

That continue to deny citizens of Cuba many of the things we take for granted in a social democracy like Ireland.

Cuba has been strangled by the US for decades. It hasn't been allowed to develop so we have no idea where it would be these days had it been left alone.

How is modern-day socialism working out in South America at the moment?

Ask the peasant people of Venezuela that question and I'm sure the answer you'd get would 'Great - stay the **** out of our business'.

Also, what society doesn't employ socialism in one form or another? Did you have a socialist education? Yes. Do you drive on evil socialist roads in your virtuous capitalist car? Yes. Do graduates from socialist universities feed so-called capitalist corporations? Yes.

Dimithy

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Afaia there was only one side that was propping up dictators, funding death squads, and brutally crushing democratic movements; this is the side that the lens of condemnation should focus on first. Any reaction against such murderous brutality is a footnote rather than the main act.

How about we condemn both?

Karl Stein

Dimithy wrote: »

How about we condemn both?

They're not equally condemnable.

I support people's right to fight back against empirical terrorism. I believe the slave owner, who maintains his privileges by threat of torture and murder, deserves any violence that is returned by his slaves. Fuck him - he deserves everything he gets for keeping slaves in the first place.

K-9

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

They're not equally condemnable.

I support people's right to fight back against empirical terrorism. I believe the slave owner, who maintains his privileges by threat of torture and murder, deserves any violence that is returned by his slaves. Fuck him - he deserves everything he gets for keeping slaves in the first place.

Mod:

Please stop post i this thread, it's getting to soap boxing stage. 11/66 posts are from you i this thread ad it's starting to spoil it.

MadsL

Pat Kenny?

BillyMitchel

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

Please stop post i this thread, it's getting to soap boxing stage. 11/66 posts are from you i this thread ad it's starting to spoil it.

Go home mod, you're drunk!

downonthefarm

the scissor sisters,they gt jail but should of been given a meadal

downonthefarm

downonthefarm wrote: »

the scissor sisters,they gt jail but should of been given a meadal

*medal

BillyMitchel

downonthefarm wrote: »

*medal

Dafuq???

Why is that?

downonthefarm

cleaning the streets of a dangerous scummer

dodderangler

Aqua man

http://youtu.be/V0kvdi3GGA0

FanadMan

Used to be a big fan of Lance Armstrong - bought the book, wore the wristband. All until the doping scandal revealed just how much of a cheating pr1ck he was. Both the book and wristband helped heat the house in the open fire :mad:

SniperSight

I find it sad that theres people on here that think theres no such thing as real heroes.

Personally, I never bought into Bobby Sands being regarded as such a hero.

Yakult

Bastards!

Grayson

playadeldick wrote: »

Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams," he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …"— and so on

There's two points though.

1) what motivated him was right even if his actions were wrong. He saw massive social injustice. He witnessed poverty everywhere and saw the over throw of democratic presidents by US backed juntas. He believed that south america needed to change. With that i think most of us can agree with his motives and aims, even if we don't agree with his methods.

2) He became disillusioned with the soviet system. After the over throw of the cuban government the soviets sent aid. But it had loads of strings attached. And it was incompatible with their system. He eventually realised that the russian soviet system wouldn't work. And after flirting with china and the maoists realised that their system wouldn't work either. that's why he left cuba.

He was always motivated by the well being of the poor and dispossessed but in the end chose bad political systems. And as you said his methods were deeply flawed (Although probably no worse than any other 20th century revolutionary).

So yeah. He probably deserves to be in this thread as a misguided hero.

robbiezero

MYOB wrote: »

Well, he didn't put the birds there, so you can't really say he devised it, but he had very much decided he was going to the river despite many other qualified people telling him to go to TEB.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

"The NTSB ran a series of tests using Airbus simulators in France, to see if Flight 1549 could have returned safely to their choice of LGA, either runway 13 or 22, or TEB runway 19. The test pilots were fully briefed on the series of events and maneuvers. The test pilots were only able to return successfully to either airport in eight of 15 attempts. The NTSB report noted that these test conditions were unrealistic: "The immediate turn made by the pilots during the simulations did not reflect or account for real-world considerations..." A single follow-up simulation was conducted where the pilot was delayed by 35 seconds: He crashed trying to return to LGA runway 22.[107]"

--Kaiser--

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I think there's a bit of a bandwagon going re Mother Teresa. She still did a lot more to help the poor and sick than most others did. And under extremely difficult circumstances in a hell-hole like Calcutta.

She didn't though. She thought suffering was holy and meant people got to heaven quicker. She just gave people a place to die and prayed over them

gurramok

Some people believe John Redmond was a hero. He led the slaughter of thousands of Irish men in WWI on a false promise, no hero there.

Seedy Arling

Cian O'Connors horse which was on drugs for the 2004 Olympics.

AngeGal

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

She didn't though. She thought suffering was holy and meant people got to heaven quicker. She just gave people a place to die and prayed over them

This. She most certainly did not. Christopher Hitchens cut that myth down to size nicely.

--Kaiser--

Another modern 'hero' I'd be sceptical of would be Nelson Mandela. He was a co-founder of the militant wing of the ANC which deliberately targeted civilians in a campaign of terror (if this is a surprise to you, look up necklacing, a common punishment for enemies of the ANC).

But, unlike some other terrorists I could mention (Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness) he served time for his crimes

(cue hysterical responses from terrorist supporters, which are legion in this country)

Joe prim

Happy the land without heroes! ( Except the chocolates, and even then, only at Xmas)

Undercover

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

But, unlike some other terrorists I could mention (Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness) he served time for his crimes.

Of course Gerry served time in the H-blocks during internment but not sure that counts...

Cody Pomeray

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Another modern 'hero' I'd be sceptical of would be Nelson Mandela. He was a co-founder of the militant wing of the ANC which deliberately targeted civilians in a campaign of terror (if this is a surprise to you, look up necklacing, a common punishment for enemies of the ANC).

Nelson Mandela deliberately targeted civilians?

Sorry, why was he not tried for that then?

Mandela focussed on causing economic damage to the racist, authoritarian South African State. He did not advocate targeting civilians. That's why the buildings were bombed at night time. Mandela understood the human cost - but he also understood the cost of alienating whites. The latter awareness was a strong theme of his Presidency.

Where are you getting this (frankly) rubbish?

It seems to have become popular just to name any widely accepted honourable man and lambaste him without adequate reason or out of some bizarre need to provide 'balance' .

FTA69

Che Guevara was a great man and his actions resonated throughout Latin America and the wider world. Himself, Fidel and the wider movement took Cuba from being a Mafia-run playground in the hands of a despot to a worker's republic that dramatically improved the lives and opportunities for its citizens. Despite some people apparently living in cloud cuckoo land, revolutions are rarely peaceful and seldom clean affairs and violence is often to be expected when confronting despots like Batista or regimes like the apartheid governments in South Africa. Our own country was no different.

Personally I consider the likes of Lenin, Guevara, Castro etc to be some of the greatest figures of the 20th Century.

FTA69

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Mandela focussed on causing economic damage to the racist, authoritarian South African State. He did not advocate targeting civilians. That's why the buildings were bombed at night time. Mandela understood the human cost - but he also understood the cost of alienating whites. The latter awareness was a strong theme of his Presidency.

Civilians did die during MK operations but the notion of him as a bloodthirsty terrorist is pure and utter b*llocks which was perpetuated by the likes of Thatcher.

Cody Pomeray

FTA69 wrote: »

Civilians did die during MK operations

I'm not sure how many civilians died, there was certainly no 'targeting' of civilians such as terrorist groups would undertake. And there was no advocation of civilian deaths by Mandela.

I am just contesting the "deliberately targeted" point.

AngeGal

FTA69 wrote: »

Che Guevara was a great man and his actions resonated throughout Latin America and the wider world. Himself, Fidel and the wider movement took Cuba from being a Mafia-run playground in the hands of a despot to a worker's republic that dramatically improved the lives and opportunities for its citizens. Despite some people apparently living in cloud cuckoo land, revolutions are rarely peaceful and seldom clean affairs and violence is often to be expected when confronting despots like Batista or regimes like the apartheid governments in South Africa. Our own country was no different.

Personally I consider the likes of Lenin, Guevara, Castro etc to be some of the greatest figures of the 20th Century.

Worker's republic, give me a break.

It's not much of a Republic when criticism of the government will land you in prison.

--Kaiser--

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm not sure how many civilians died, there was certainly no 'targeting' of civilians such as terrorist groups would undertake. And there was no advocation of civilian deaths by Mandela.

I am just contesting the "deliberately targeted" point.

Chruch Street bombing.

Now I realise this took place while Mandela was in prison, so I will concede the point that he did not advocate civilian deaths

Edit: Apparently Mandela writes in 'Long Walk to Freedom' that he signed off on this heinous act, so I will retract my earlier concession. He also refused a deal to renounce violence in order to be set free in 1985

Prettyblack

Away from the politics... slightly: John Lennon.

Now, I love the Beatles, and I love John Lennon, but the saintly way he is regarded now is no reflection on what he was actually like.

He was, as McCartney once called him "a maneuvering swine".

Add to that a junkie, a woman beater (he admitted that himself), adulterer, lousy father, homophobe (he taunted Brian Epstein about being gay), short tempered, aggressive, unbelievably egotistical, anti-semitic (just read what he had to say about Linda Eastman's father), snobbish, misguided politically, misguided as an activist - he once told protesters who were occupying a public park that was going to be built on: "just let them have it".

OK, he never murdered anyone but he was certainly not this god-like figure - he was a mess of paranoia, drugs, store-bought eastern philosophies, neuroses, and completely under the control of his wife (if you believe Ray Coleman or Geoffrey Guiliano). He certainly wasn't a "working class hero" - he was as middle class as you can get (George Harrison, now there was a working class Beatle).

But we all love Lennon cos he wrote "Imagine", and cos he was shot.

Yoko Ono's made a fortune exploiting this image of Lennon - but even she kicked him out for 18 months in 1973 - 74 cos he was such a c**t. It actually took Paul McCartney to get them back together.

Now THERE'S a saint.

Latchy

John Lennon .

Now I was and still am a fan of the Beatles stuff and growing up in the 70s , John Lennon held a fascination for me as it did for many others and he wrote and sang on some great songs reflecting society ie, Nowhere Man but his character was quite flawed and nasty at times .His upbringing ,with his father leaving when he was young and his mother dying just before he was getting to know her better fuelled his anger and resentment towards anybody and everybody and there are numerous shameful incidents towards people before ,during and after Beatle fame which reflect this .

bnt wrote: »

John F. Kennedy[/B
He gets too much credit for defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis, which had at least as much to do with advisers such as Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense) and U Thant (UN Secretary General).

He was under so much pressure from the military during the Bay Of pigs to invade Cuba who also wanted him to nuke the place during the Missile Crisis so himself , Bobby Kennedy and McNamara ( who showed his other side under the Johnson administration ) deserve equal credit for defusing that dangerous situation .

Had JFK survived to the end of a second term, and escaped assassination, he wouldn't be as "beatified" as he is today. The way he died tends to overshadow the way he lived.

True ,his assassination immortalised him like no other celebrity or president before or since ( except maybe Lennon ) but had he survived , we will never know if The Vietnam war would have exploded the way it did with his next in line Johnson and Nixon's escalation of troops and massive bombing campaigns .

My opinion is that although he was seen as a being a younger , inexperienced and weak president by many it's only because he refused to be bullied by older military generals into using force and weapons and continued with his diplomatic dialogue agenda which prevented WW3 .

boru36

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

I don't know what book you're talking about, but any chance you'd counter the point?

I don't see what is heroic about undemocratic (the democratic IPP won 84 out of 105 of the available seats, clearly indicating the people of Ireland wanted home rule, and not Sinn Féins insurrectionist policies) storming the national post office and holding a city to siege?

Im sure the Arabs that Rabin ordered from their homes found him a great lad altogether too !!!

bubba gump

Just to put some context to one of Che's "killings/murders". There is a story in the previously mentioned Che biography (I read book over 6 years ago and am going off memory but gist is correct) where we're told that in the early stages of their war against Batista, Che and his small group of soldiers came across a local peasant deserter who had gone over to the Government side. Not having a prison set up this early in the campaign in the jungle and also being too vulnerable to ambush and/or complete obliteration had the peasant broke his vow not to give away their position Che realised that the peasant had to be killed. Instead of delegating this task to a junior officer/soldier he took it upon himself to shot the man (cue Game of Thrones references re "The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword".

Situations like this are the grey areas that arise when we discuss "heroes". Che couldn't risk the peasant giving away their position and also couldn't afford to have someone guard him (slow them down, lack of food and supplies already etc.) so choose in favour of what he believed was the potential for a better life for millions over the life of one man.

I have a lot of respect for Che and consider him great person, but at the same time disagree with many of his ideas and actions throughout his life. I do however believe that in the above example he took the only option available to him in war, unfair on the poor peasant man as it was.

Yitzhak Rabin

boru36 wrote: »

Im sure the Arabs that Rabin ordered from their homes found him a great lad altogether too !!!

What are you on about? We're talking about the deluded 1916 rebels and the fact that they had next to no support for their uprising.

--Kaiser--

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

What are you on about? We're talking about the deluded 1916 rebels and the fact that they had next to no support for their uprising.

I was confused as well but I think he's referring to your username

Augmerson

Yitzhak Rabin wrote: »

The 1916 rebels. Worshipped in Ireland with plenty of streets and buildings named after them.

Completely undemocratic and deluded romantasists. Caused huge damage to the capital and its people in a move that had little support. They would be brandished as terrorists today, and rightly so.

Jesus H Christ.

You're probably embarrassed that Ireland is a Republic today, aren't you?

Latchy

Prettyblack wrote: »

Away from the politics... slightly: John Lennon.

the saintly way he is regarded now is no reflection on what he was actually like.

I could add quite a few more nasty Lennon incidents but one which sticks out is how Eirc Clapton in his autobiography describes how back in 1965 he invited an elderly lady Beatle fan backstage to meet them and was shocked to see Lennon greet the woman by sticking out his tongue to one side and and make hand gestures.

Potatoeman

I always found it strange seeing the Mao and Stalin t-shirts considering the body count.

Mao Zedong (49-78 million deaths)
Jozef Stalin (23 million deaths)
Adolf Hitler (17 million deaths)

Yitzhak Rabin

Augmerson wrote: »

Jesus H Christ.

You're probably embarrassed that Ireland is a Republic today, aren't you?

No, why would I be?

Do you think that after an election where a party advocating a political solution (home rule) wins a landslide victory (86 out of 105 seats) that its ok to say "**** the people, they don't know what they want, lets just have a violent and utterly deluded assault on the capital anyway"??

I would be much prouder had Ireland gained its independence through peaceful means like canada, nz or aus.

Incidentally Im not apposed to the armed conflict after it received public backing in the 1918 elections.