Those free from ideological indoctrination about "communist threats"
everytime peasants resist economic repression and governmental "Death
Squad Strategy" [Amnesty] can "order" by email files containing
information about:

-- Contrasting Human rights under the Sandinistas versus former U.S.
backed dictator Somoza; Similarly rights under the Sandinistas versus
El Salvador and Guatemala [Sources: Human rights groups]

-- The fairness of 1984 elections in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas
[Sources: various independent international observers]

-- Contra Terrorism [Documented by numerous HR groups and
international observers as a deliberate terrorist strategy]

-- The Significant acheivements of the Sandinista-led revolution [As
documented by UNESCO, Oxfam America, and other international
organizations]

##################################################################
##################################################################

This is what preceded the original list of quotes/ref.'s regarding
contra terrorism:

##################################################################
Xref: dartvax alt.activism:8302 soc.culture.latin-america:3101
		misc.headlines:22653 talk.politics.misc:52560
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 1991 02:34:46 GMT
==================================================================

>> > Excerpts from netnews.soc.culture.latin-america: 25-Jan-91 Re: U.S.
>> > pro-Stalinism (Re:.. Mark Peters@u02.svl.cdc. (1996)
>> 
>> > The current government in El Salvador is a brutal, military dictatorship,
>> > but as such, it doesn't pose a threat to the U.S. - militarily,
>> > economically, or otherwise.  A communist government in El Salvador
>> > *would* be a definite threat, both militarily and economically. 
>> 
>> This is not as evident to me as it apparently is to you -neither
>> sentence is obviously true.
>
>If that government supports communist insurgencies in other countries,
>breeds instability and imports billions in weapons from a strategic
>enemy of the US, then they are clearly are a definite threat.

This type of manure both does not merit to clog up alt.activism, and
at the same time does deserve to be answered (maybe alt.activism.d?)

The answers, which need to be expressed in more detail, involve such
matters as:

-- the routine labeling of any group of peasants fighting against a
U.S. client state employing mass-slaughter, torture, and general state
terror to keep the "order" as "communist insurgencdies";

-- the lies about Nicaraguan military support for such movements;

-- the idea that *had* there been support given to peasants being
slaughtered by a U.S.-backed regime, that this would justify an attack
against Nicaragua;

-- the idea that *had* the Reagan/Bush administration the
justification to attack the Sandinistas, that this is what they were
engaged in in their creation and support of the "freedom fighters"
employed in Washington's war on Nicaragua, who were in fact not
fighting "against the Sandinistas" but engaged in a terrorist campaign
against the Nicaraguan population designed to erode support for
Sandinista reforms by brutalizing anyone who cooperated, including
the murder, kidnapping, rape, and torture of health care workers,
literacy volunteers; blowing up Sandinista-built hospitals, etc.

Harel

------------------------------------------------------------------
We may try to scratch the surface of that last item:

[...]

##################################################################