tisonlyi

Well, I'd prefer my revolutions conducted in the mould of Gandhi rather than the some of the transcendent, violent prescriptions of Franz Fanon (a la Che).

Che as genocidal maniac - No. Just no.
Che as maniac - Absolutely not, you need to read something he wrote, rather than what is wrote about him.
Che in comparison to Hitler or Mao - Baseless as well as ridiculous.

Che used violence as PART of what he was part of building and wanting for humanity. Not genocidal, maniacal violence, but the using of arms to further political objectives.

It shouldn't take you too long to think of some of your heroes who did likewise.

Also, as an aside, you might like to ponder on whether the US coup against the Arbenz government in 1954 directly led to the galvanizing and motivating of a young Che into the revolutionary that much of the world embraces as a hero - albeit flawed.

Blowback. I wonder what's coming down the line now?

Directed in the Holy name of Jesus and The Lord.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--