Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: In the Name of God Message-ID: <600@kontron.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 18:04:01 EST Article-I.D.: kontron.600 Posted: Wed Mar 12 18:04:01 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 23:10:02 EST References: <1680@ihlpg.UUCP> <11000126@uiucdcsb> <60@gilbbs.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA Lines: 102 > In article <11000126@uiucdcsb>, vanzandt@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: > > > > You have been fooled by the scaffold of deception that surrounds the > > Sandanistas and has from day 1. These people are Marxist-Leninists and > > have looked towards Cuba And the USSR as their source of ideology since > > the early stages of their revolution. Wake up. Don't use the excuse that > > the Sandanista policies are a result of US aggression; back at the start > > of their rule (post July '79) when the US was still friendly and giving > > them economic aid, Borge and compatriots were traveling to Russia and > > praising them for such things as the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. > > Talk to the NICARAGUAN church officials about religious persecution - what > > happened to the Sunday televised mass, the Catholic radio station, the 16+ > > expelled priests and nuns, the Crusade for Christ ministry (an association > > of nonaligned college student-missionaries), etc. Who cares if a homeboy > > bishop went to Nicaragua and sat in Tomas Borge's inner sanctum and personally > > witnessed the nice man looking at a Bible? I agree with Simon - an earlier > > note complianing about the pro-Soviet stance of this net group - we > > desperately need some rational thought in this .group. > > I don't recall seeing anyone claiming that the Sandinistas are wonderful, > gentle, peace loving benefactors. *I* certainly never made any such claim! > Perhaps not on the net, but there's no shortage of people demonstrating on campuses and in front of Federal Buildings who do believe so -- or claim they believe it. > How is it that declaiming the support of the Contra Terrorists is > a pro-Sviet stance? Remember who the Contras ARE. > > They are, by and large, the remnants of the Samosa secret police and army. > They were hardly the democratic benefactors. They are interested only in > re-instating their own dictatorship over the Nicarauguan people, not in any > form of freedom (excepting possibly their freedom to oppress/repress). > Some members of the contras are former Somoza (please learn to spell the bastard's name -- it gives the impression you've read something about him if you can spell the name correctly) officials. One of those officials was in fact punished for being too liberal, and was sent abroad as a diplomat to get him out of Nicaraguan politics. Some of the contras are people who fought against Somoza, many former Sandinistas who became disillusioned with how the revolution was betrayed. Some of the contras are Miskito Indians, tired of getting shafted first by Somoza and then by the Sandinistas. Some of the contras are peasants who resent being drafted. Some are members of the democratic opposition. Your statements above are inaccurate in their oversimplification of Nicaraguan politics. > As I said in several other articles posted to this newsgroup, there > appear to be an awfully large number of seemingly intelligent individuals > positng here who are incapable of anything but binary reasoning. > Like the example you gave above about the contras? > Because I deplore and condemn the support of the Contra terrorists in no > way implies that I an any way support the Sandinista regime. I do not. > I *DO* believe that the United States should keep out of it completely. > The fact is that without US aid, the Contras would not be able to maintain > their fight. Thus, if we assume that economic aid to the Contras qualifies > as "American aggression" (a por choice of terms, I'll grant you), then it > follows that the major violence in Nicaraugua is indeed the result of > "American aggression", and that any measures taken by the Sandinistas to > reduce the danger of such violence is in direct response to same. > Without US aid, the Contras will limp along for years, fighting but not winning the war. I think an equally valid argument could be made that providing them with aid with speed up the process of overthrowing the Sandinistas, which will end the war and reduce the violence ... but the absurdity of this argument is pretty obvious. "Peace" is always available to any group or government -- just surrender and say you don't care about your liberties and lives. > I suggest that all of you "freedom loving" Americans who believe so strongly > in the support of terrorism by America (the Contras, Savimbe, etc.) go to one > of these places and volunteer to fight. Go on, join the Contras! That's illegal under U.S. law. > I would also suggest that you folks should donate additionaly funds over and > above your legal tax burden, tagged specifically to go tot the terrorists. > *I* do not choose to support terrorism, regardless of the bullshit > euphemisms you care to use to disguise it. > Also illegal under U.S. law. > 'Nuff said. > > tom keller Definitions of terrorism are seldom shown on the net because the word is so emotionally charged. There are doubtless examples that can be cited of terrorism by the Contras. They claim that these are not official policy and that many of the documented incidents involve a commander who has since been executed for his actions. What's the truth? I'm not sure, but since similar assertions have been made about the Sandinistas (by one of Borge's assistants), it's hard to see a clear moral high ground in this war. From a pragmatic standpoint, it's clear that the Contras are more friendly to the U.S. than the Sandinistas.