Iranian Children's Cartoon Promotes Suicide Bombing

[Nike]

starving little ego? d'oh.
You're a liar!



besides that, you are no pompous little arsehole, too.

[MrMaelstrom]

Nope, but I excell at fishing for compliments, see?

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

Here I disagree. I find that the real issues of the non-extremists are in fact strongly determined by land (as well).
Not in the extremist "we must drive these infidels from this holy/sacred ground", but as a literal space/territory that that can shelter "your" people and in which their future can be determined by themselves.
I know it stinks to high heaven of the nazi Lebens Raum (vital space) theory which led to Chekoslovakia, Bavaria, Austria and finnaly triggering WWII in Poland, but it is still a major issue, specifically hydric resources.

Extremists use the religion of Islam to fuel political and personal motivation. It, in fact, hides that. Much in the way that Ayatollah Khomneini declared that the war on Iraq, which was obviously over territory and a peronal feud that had been going on between Saddam and Khomneini before the war, was a religious war for Islam against the son of Satan (Saddam). What was the war actually about? Territorial invasion and how much that land meant to the Iranians as well as integrity. Though the public was fed that crap about Islam and a holy war, so-forth and so-on, in reality, hundreds of thousands of Iranians died for a territorial dispute and personal feud.

Radicals and Islamic extremists' goals are often political, not religious. Much like Ayman al-Zawahiri, the real brains behind al-Qaeda. Any publication you read of that man's, it's focused entirely on polical goals with some religious rhetoric thrown in at a bare minimum. The people that follow these men are the ones that are the real religious zealots. But then agian, they're not the ones making the decisions other than their own to pull a trigger at a target that was predesignated to them.

There are many exceptions, but in most cases, holy wars have underlying goals that have nothing to do with Islam.

[Circle V]

Originally Posted by edible_eye

a bigger question to all since we know that children are used as weapons -

do you or would you condone killing the children of extremists in order to stem off suicide / homicide attacks?

can you or do you see them as militant combatants? if you had the chance to stare into the eyes of a child as he pulled a trigger from his pocket and held his thumb above it - could you fire a round into his head?

Yes. I would hate myself for the rest of my life, but I would do it. I would feel that way if I didn't kill the child, too, provided I survived, but I would also have the blood of everyone else killed by the child on my hands, and he would be just as dead.

I fear death. I would kill anyone that means to kill me.

[Circle V]

Originally Posted by Binkie

e_e,
...Circle V mistakenly changed the language on everyone, the word Mael used was not "understand," but "understandable."

Understandable = able to be understood

[Binkie]

Understand is a broad term and has many definitions. Quick run down of a few of them*:

1. To perceive and comprehend the nature and significance of; grasp.
2. To know thoroughly by close contact or long experience with
..........a) To grasp or comprehend the meaning intended or expressed by (another)
..........b) To comprehend the language, sounds, form, or symbols of.
3. To know and be tolerant or sympathetic toward
4. To learn indirectly, as by hearsay: I understand his departure was unexpected.
5. To infer
6. To accept (something) as an agreed fact
7. To supply or add (words or a meaning, for example) mentally.

So generally in an everyday conversation, when someone talks about a family living in poverty that has to steal and other person responds, "that's perfectly understandable," that's generally leaning towards empathy (definition #3). "Understand" in the manner which you used was geared towards a different definition altogether. They're not compatible.

(footnote: as taken from "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition")

[Circle V]

Take the first definition, then.

I don't like getting into such technicalities. I believe that you're reading too deeply into Maelstrom's posts, but I *understand* why you're doing so.

[Binkie]

Yeah, I guess this just incorrectly rubbed off as empathy:

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

Strangely enough, most of these so called Martyrs do come from refugee camps. I guess that being born in a refugee camp and watching your children live and die in a refugee camp makes for some changes in the mindset of what people are willing to do to counter their opression (unless of course, palestinians really aren't being repressed). I guess that many would rather see their children dead than trampled on. Many prefer the idea of their children dying to being killed by mindless twats following orders ('cause that's what it comes down to when trying to prosecute military personel, as the case of the schoolgirl evidently showed: the prosecution witnesses were soldiers themselves [bless the ones with a heart inside their chests] and yet...)
I would, of course prefer the parents to go instead, but hey, it's not me, my kids and my family living in such sub-human conditions.

Especially since this is completely unmolested with emotionally charged labels such as "opression," "mindless twats," and "sub-human conditions."

[Loy]

*writes note to self reminding to log on more often*

seeing as how this topic has brought forth quite a bit of debate, I figured I'd backstep a bit and retort to a previous question-

Binkie-Your bringing up of the CIA (in your retort to my statement about the Americans being just as guilty of disseminating similar propaganda).....well, the CIA wasn't directly involved with this program. However, I never mentioned the CIA in the first place, so your line of questioning seems more of a deflective manouver than an actual retort.

However, you forgot to mention that the US government has quite a few departments. The one involved with the spreading of propaganda-the state department.

Here's the lowdown-the Sandinista revolution, as much as the fucktarded right would like to deny so, was actually supported by the populace of Nicaragua. Now, why would the populace support a bunch of commies? Well, in actuality, whilst being leftists, they weren't commies. In fact, the basis of their ideology is based upon Liberation Theology, which critics have called a combination of christianity and Marxism. However, considering that the theological exponents and followers of LT were unfamiliar with the works of Marx (and Lenin, and...well, any other commie leader you could bring up), this analogy is fairly misleading.

Now, this theology (which goes against most of the material-based theologies running rampant in the US) was seen as "a communist agenda tool" by such religious leaders as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (in actuality, they were pissed about another form of christianity being a major influence on "their" hemisphere), they started a propaganda program within the US (which is where the myth of "sandinista=commie" comes from...not to mention all the other myths) and throughout Central America. One of the products of this propaganda program? Comic books.

Much like the so-far-off-the-mark-that-they're-hilarious Chick tracks, they were filled with the most blatent forms of racism/sexism/homophobia/xenophobia. However, unlike Chick tracks, which tries to scare the living shit out of the reader into converting, the comic books were used to scare the living crap out of the reader into fighting the Sandinistas ("they're not real christians....they're agents of the anti-christ, and it's the job of good christians to kill off agents of the anti-christ"....so ended one of said books). And who were these books trageted towards? That's right, indiginious children.

Now, why were kids being targeted? Well, would you have a harder time shooting an adult or a child? Also, even if a child soldier failed and got killed, it would work well for propaganda purposes within the US ("these Sandinistas are so evil that they....GASP....KILL CHILDREN!!!!")

Now, how does the state department tie into all of this? Well, the State Dept actually GAVE the front organizations set up by the Christian Coalition the funding they needed to print/distribute these fun little books. (And since this was considered "work done overseas", this funding fell under the "foreign aid" auspices...yes, gving american companies money is one way we give "foreign aid"). This might sound as if Fallwell and Robertson were pullign a fast one, until you realise one thing-Falwell was an advisor to "President" Reagan, who also didn't care for the Sandinistas. Falwell "convinced" Reagan to have the State Department give "foreign aid".

Any other questions?

[Binkie]

Tom,
you're right in saying that "there's nothing wrong with a little empathy." That is, until you begin reasoning with it to the extent of justifying an extremist act. Describing to others that it was completely reasonable to fly a comerical plane into the World Trade Center and kill hundreds of civilians, including women and children.

[Binkie]

Loy,
I mentioned the CIA because they were the only agency that would be logically involved in distributing the said cartoons. And in fact, they did spearhead the very program I'm, again, assuming to which you are refering. If not, they did one almost exactly like the program you speak of. It was a cartoon-portrayl of government principles meant to stir up cynicism and unrest amongst the general population. In addition to being printed in a booklet, they were also printed in daily news papers.

Their target audience was not children, but adults. This is why the characters in these cartoons were painted in large form on the sides of buildings near polling places right before the 1990 elections. In addition, these were editorial cartoons meant for consumption by the general public, much in the same way that ol' Uncle Sam has been printed in many of the same type of books and handed out as propaganda targeting adults.

That was the public program. Another manual ("Freedom Fighter’s Manual") was printed in cartoon form that instructed it's readers how to accomplish simple, but adult-specific, tasks such as prank calling hotels, ruining typewriters at work, screwing up the sewage system, etc. For reference, this can be found (translated) here.

Who do you think these front organizations were run by? The Christian Coalition? Perhaps affiliated, but I'm talking about the very workers, themselves - right there in Central America. Ever take a look at the CIA's careers section? Kinda odd that they are always looking for BAs in business for their officers in the clandestine program. In addition to working out of embassies, the CIA also has thousands of fronted businesses around the globe that allow them to operate in other nations without having to shed surveillance every five seconds. Israel's Mossad does the same thing here in the US, as we found out recently through a major spy scandal regarding foreign policy towards Iraq.

[Binkie]

I'm not much of a moral person myself. This is mostly why I was saying, "Is *this* what you're doing?" - then letting them decide which side of the fence they wanted to paint their message on.

But yeah, I wasn't really diggin' the language either, so what if we change "wrong" to "extremist?"

[Loy]

Binkie-actually the chick book program was a different program from the one you're speaking about. The one I'm speaking of was propagated by Moral Majority offshoots (mostly) and other weird american christian groups (partly), and the only thing the CIA had to do with the program I'm speaking of was the training of the recruits in such fine things as weapon handling, tactical maneuvering, explosives, and how to properly use a bayonet and/or garroting wire.

Now if only they'd teach these to 10-15 year olds in the US, I think we'd have much more entertaining gang wars.....oh wait, these were the same guys that were involved with introducing crack cocaine to the LA gangs, and importing coke and weapons to said gangs.

So, to bring this all back full circle-the Arab cartoon is disgusting. However, we have done the same thing, and have made NO assurances that we won't do it again (plausible deniability aside, we fucking did it). Therefore, we lose our moral high ground on this one. Now, onto the next diversionary news story........

[Binkie]

American Christian Groups? They may have helped raise money, but most of the funds from the State Department went to Churchs that operated independantly within Nicaragua. May have had contacts to US organizations, but they were self-sustained down there in Nicaragua. The Roman Catholic and Moravian Church being examples of those Churches which recieved direct contributions and well as funneled. Both were vocal critics of the Sandinista government before they recieved aid. And if it was the State Department's money, it would have gone out through USAID, which couldn't directly contribute to these Churches when the Sandinista government caught on and disallowed it. Not only did they disallow it, Congress soon disallowed it. That's when you saw contributions being funneled through an organization called, "The American Institute for Free Labor Development," which was a CIA front. Any US-based organization in Nicaragua that recieved money from the State Department after 1982 was most likely a front.

Now I've never seen the print content that came out of these Churches in Nicaragua, so I'm not going to comment on that (what medium it was printed in regards to, who it targeted, etc.), however, that was under their own direction. We simply funded their particular opposition. This is comparable to funding in the same decade of "freedom fighters" over in Afghanistan. Again, they were using our weapons, our money, and they did whatever the hell they wanted with it. That included killing each other in the midst of fighting the Soviets and the communist government. That included using children to crawl under Soviet tanks with grenades and explosives and "take them out." Who knows what kind of propaganda programs were funded through the ISI. The way it worked though was that officials got word of this kind of stuff later, but they continued to pour money in because, eh, shit happens, but most opposition that's funded doesn't exploit children. That which does within the knowledge of officials is scandal-material.

Back on topic; this cartoon was a direct result of the Iranian state-media (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting). It was aired in a manner that suggests not only to the Palestinians, that it's admirable to condone this, but to it's own public. Meaning it's not just about using people, they actually buy this, themselves. There is no equivalent to that in the US, that I'm aware of. What the CIA does around the world does not reflect principles which our government is willing to condone publicly. Especially not using children in suicide attacks. If this case you speak of is as you have laid it out, it was still not the US government's design. I'm afraid you'll have to meet me a little more than half way to explain how these are links in the same chain, Loy, cause I'm not seeing it clearly.

[Loy]

Just to clarify-the Roman Catholic church wasn't anti-Sandinista. In fact, the Roman Catholic diocese was where the Liberation Theology that was the basis of the Sandinista supporters sprung from. Now, this doesn't mean there was opposition to this theological thoughtline from within the church, but when I say within the church, I mean from certain European priests and cardinals (specifically from our the new Pope). Almost all the cardinals in central america were followers/expousers of LT, and the rest were supportive of it. (Remember Cardinal Romero? The priest that the CIA assassinated for being such a thorn in the side of American domination of the region? Roman Catholic, FYI) However, this opposition had a few disadvantages from the church, the main one being that the popes, whilst not supporting 100% this ofshoot, were actually supportive of the theological base of LT. So whilst you may be able to quote a few cardinals here and there, to say the Roman catholic church was against the Sandinistas is disingenuous at the very least, and manipulative of the facts more so.

As far as the plausible deniability you're expousing....sorry, but I call "bullshit" on it. As I said, Falwell was in direct contact with Reagan (he was an advisor) and he made very clear what these "church" groups were going to do with the funding. Reagan had the State department provide the funding once he finished ejaculating the warm-flat-pepsi-like liquid that passes for cum. To say "we gave them money, but we have no responsibility for what they do with it" (hey, isn't this what Republicans bitch about when complaining about Liberals tossing money towards a problem? Nice to see the hypocrisy flowing so freely)....well, how you can logically deny the responsibility for the actions of groups we funded BECAUSE of what they were going to do just escapes me....and I'm sure anybody else who uses logic for the basis of their reasoning. Your excuse making is starting to crack, my dear girl.

[Binkie]

I didn't pull the remark about the Roman Catholic church out of my ass though, Loy. The FSLN and the Roman Catholic Church had very bitter relations, and this was publicly stated several times. Even-so to the extent that the FSLN accused the church of supporting the Contras by their lack of condemnation. I won't quote cardinals to support this, I'll quote President Daniel Ortega, himself ('85-'90):

"The conflict with the church was strong, and it cost us, but I don't think it was our fault ... There were so many people being wounded every day, so many people dying, and it was hard for us to understand the position of the church hierarchy [who refused to condemn the Contras]."

FSLN militants went so far on one occassion as to disrupt Pope John Paul the II durring the course of Mass while was visiting Nicaragua. They shouted rather obscene slurs at him as well as pro-FSLN slogans. Take ten guesses who was also on stage with the Pope, egging the mob on with pro-FSLN slogans? Daniel Ortega. Which wasn't a surprise, as they carried on in the same practices back in 1983 as well, interrupting Mass and vanadilizing Catholic churches. Archbishops were banned from televised Mass in 1981. Priests were arrested under questionable circumstances. When the Roman Catholic Church hired international laywers, they too were quickly arrested. Many Catholic priests were essentially deported for criticising the government (which often ammounted to just protesting an unlawful arrest of a church official). These events were the reason the State Department poured and funneled money into the Roman Catholic Church so vigorously durring the 1980s. All this stuff agitated the hell out of the Roman Catholic Church. But getting back to it, painting the picture that they were open arms to each other and buddy buddy... that doesn't ring true to historical events.

As for the propaganda, who knows. Perhaps it was just the atmosphere in Nicaragua. Fighting fire with fire. What do I mean by that? In addition to what the church supposedly constructed, the state, itself, issued textbooks to schools that involved counting grenades in math problems. Kids were seen across the country pledging their "loyalty and sacrifice" to the FSLN. That comes dangerously close to the rhetoric used in Palestine and Iran that condones suicide bombings. The "heroric leftist government" also played a large role in doing the exact same thing. They were open as hell about it too.

But atop of that, you give the US government way too much credibility in knowing what they're doing. Back in the 80s, one CIA analyst quoted Milton Bearden as having said something in a meeting akin to, "We're just throwing money in there and letting god decide." That was in reference to Afghan fighters. Later he'd admittingly state he had no idea what he was doing with all the funds, and this is the guy that directly oversaw our support of "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. When asked how much he needed, he threw out a bogus figure that wasn't supported by any pre-planned research into what it could buy. This is why many Afghan fighters were armed with guns sometimes pre-dating WWI. So no, it's not too far off the mark to suggest that people with all the money haven't a clue. And that's just in the CIA. You think the State Department, without any experience in this, is any better?

If you can tie in that the government had direct knowledge of these cartoon books before they funded them, by all means, do share what you have. Otherwise it's pure speculation. If that's the case, you know how this arguement is going to end. Just like all our other's; a stalemate.

[Loy]

Whilst it's true that relations between the Sandinistas and the church eroded (though nowhere near as badly as you're suggesting)....well, fuck it. Just to make it easier (because I am a lazy bastard, after all), I pulled out Rhomas Bokenkatter's "Concise History Of the Catholic Church". Here are some interesting passages for you-

"While the church officially supported the Somoza regime, certain parts of the church became revolutionary as early as 1972. These were members of Chrictian Base Communities who bnegan to identify liberation of the people with the armed struggle being led by the Sandinistas. They had been radicalized after the terrible earthquake of 1972 when they saw how Somoza and his cronies used the humanitarian funds contributed from abroad to enrich themselves.

The importance of the participation of these Christian Base Communities can hardly be exaggerated. As one sociologist put it, 'the Nicaraguan revolution was fostered and succeeded because of the presence of a strong network of secondary organizations-the Christian Base Communities, many of which were formally established...but many more grew spontaneously carrying Christians into the revolution without formal church approval'

Basically, Christian Base Communities were little housing systems set up for poor people to work and live together. The rise of the communities coincided with the theft from the people by Somoza ("our son of a bitch", as Kennedy once put it), which was happening in tandem with the growing popularity of Liberation theology. So let's put this all together-a radicalization of theological beliefs, combined with the pillaging of a populace by its "leaders", and an organization which was bent on overthrowing the corrupt system....what happened was that the church actually became the breeding ground of the people who supported the Sandinistas.

Now, it was mentioned that there wasn't any official church sanctioning of this all. Well, this boils down to the theological tet-a-tet between the instigators of Liberation Theology and Cardinal Ratzinger (now more popularly known as "His Holiness, the Pope"). The problem? Ratzinger was bothered by LT's call for a "looser structure of the church", which he felt would weaken the position of the church as an authority. Ratzinger was also bothered by LT's active cooperation with groups that could easilly be seen as Marxist.

However, pope John Paul never had any problems with LT. In fact, after Ratzinger had punished a few LT expousers to silence, the Pope withdrew it, and put out a critique of LT that was fairly positive (the only problems the Pope had with LT was what he saw as "slight" (his words) exagerations of scriptural interpretation). As far as the Pope and LT, he saw LT as being, on the theological level, correct.

So now begs to question, since it's been pointed out that the Church didn't really have any problems with LT, why would they be pouring money into the RC church to "fight the Sandys"? Simple, these "churches" we were throwing money to weren't RC at all, but used the name for advertising purpose.

AS far as the grenades thing....you are aware that the "counting with grenades" thing was actually a piece of disinformation that was to be disseminated to the US with the express purpose of making the Sandy's look bloodthirsty, and that every journalist who saw it and knew anything about what was going on in Nicaragua knew it for what it was, and that it's used to this day to teach journalism students about knowing all aspects of a story, lest you look like a fool the same way the morons who tried to pass this off as authentic did, right? Hell, the CIA admitted it in testimony to congress. I'm suprised you didn't know about it, Bink.

As far as What Reagan knew.....no, there isn't a paper trail. There i, however, eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence pointing to Reagans forknowledge aboutwhat Falwell was up to (hell, Fallwell bragged about it. Now, you can call Falwell many things, but "straight-out liar" isn't one of them. "Straight-out liar", on the other hand, is one of MANY terms one can use about Reagan.)

[Binkie]

Not as bad as I'm making it out to be? I was citing actual incidents that are on record. I mean, if you want them, Loy, I'll pull out the specifics here and cite each and every event I'm referring to.

And I'm not talking about Catholic communities. Many Nicaraguans were not that well in touch with the Catholic Church durring the 80s. What they got to see of it through television was quickly stripped away in '81.

You can point to the Liberation theology all you want. Supposedly John Paul II and Ortega were both supporters, but when the soon to be President was up on stage egging on a crowd of people purposely drawn into the Church by FSLN officials to interrupt and hijack the Pope's visit, I really couldn't see how that had much to do with any sort of 'rosey' relationship you're trying to paint between both. What it seems like you're trying to do is tie in the relations that the RC's small radical branch, "Popular Church of Liberation Theology," had with the FSLN and say that represented most of the RC Church.

And you're making awfully big assumptions, Loy, by saying that these weren't real Roman Catholic organizations and churches that the money went to. Believe me, there were radical branches that were very anti-FSLN, just like the PCLT was pro-FSLN. Both took very real action in propaganda campaigns. PCLT was funded directly by the FSLN while the other radical groups were funded through CIA front organizations (since our government's attempt in '85 to fund Roman Catholic church oraganizations through USAID in the private sector were vigorously denied by the Nicaraguan government).

No, I wasn't aware that the "counting with grenades" thing was disinformation. I was under the impression that the National Literacy Crusade was a very real event which won awards from the UN, and that it's national coordinator, Fernando Cardenal, admitted that the use of grenades and AK-47s in math problems was politically driven but defended that by saying kids wanted to learn with military language. Here's a quote by the man, himself, in defense of this issue:

"The mystique of that time was military. The younger ones were too young to have fought Somoza, to have participated in the insurrection, but now they wanted to do something for the country. Suddenly, something came up, a Crusade, that gave them the opportunity to do this. It was no longer a matter of taking up arms like their older brothers or sisters or cousins or parents or aunts or uncles. It was something else, a social task, a contribution to the country’s development, but the language used in this work had to be military and continued to be military because that was the language that had accompanied the whole nation in the period leading up to the Crusade. We can’t look at yesterday’s history through today’s eyes. History is history and this was the mystique of 25 years ago."

Again, I'm not sure what Congressional testimony you're refering to, but no, I have no knowledge of CIA officials having gone before members of Congress and having told them that reports of "grenade math problems" were purely the figment of a propaganda campaign. If that is true, someone should tell the American Nicaraguan School (a US-accredited college preparatory program) to stop teaching ousted propaganda as historical fact in their curriculum. Or at least inform the association responsible for accrediting them, as well as sponsors such as Harvard University, that they are actively teaching disinformation.

[Loy]

Not that well in touch with the church? So, say, going to mass and actively participating with the church is somehow not being touch with the church? One thing you've gotta understand about lands that were once spanish....EXTREMELY Roman Catholic (hell, why do you think I went to seminary). As it goes for the Phillipines, it goes just as much in Central American countries....which include Nicaragua.

Point 1-The Catholic Base Communities WERE Roman Catholic in both origin and support. To deny this is just plain idiotic.

Point 2-The organizations that were anti-Sandinista had no actual ties to the Roman Catholic Church itself (were there ties? Tenuous, to say the very least. Maybe something like "oh, this person is a Roman Catholic"), nd I'm not saying there werem't anti-sandy priests, but as far as actual Church involvement. Sorry, but gonna say "bullshit" on that one. Ratzinger wishes it weren't so, but oh well. We were stupid enough to make Bush president, the catholics were stupid enough to put him in charge.

Point 3-You keep bringing up the crowd vs. the pope. As for how that went down....sorry, gonna go back to my boyu Tommy on this one

"Finally, at a mass in Managua with hundreds of thousands in attendance, he chose to stress the need for unity with the bishops already identified with the anti-Sandinista bourgeoisie, uttering while not a positive word about the revolution and the suffering endured by its martyrs. The Mass degenerated into a shouting match between the frustrated Sandinista supporters and the Pope, who three times ordered them to be silent."

Hmm, that's odd....the history book and your account are quite different. Now, you're probably gonna say something about the "liberal idealogue" who wrote this book, but I'd like to point out the Tommy is an actual member of the church, and has himself admitted that he'd been accused of "glossing over the ugly parts of church history"....if anything, you'de think he'd play up the Sandinista's ugliness. Why isn't it there? Hmmm.....maybe your exaggerating a bit to back up your point?

As for the grenades thing....the testimony was from one of the many "CIA is smuggling and selling drugs in the United States" commisions (the Inra/Contra party and the influx of the crack epidemic are connected, remember), and it was something that just slipped out (now, whether thios in itself was the actual disinformation....now that I think about it, there is that possibility). As for whether anybody on the other side is actually using this to teach kids how to count without realising that the source they think it's from isn't the actual source.....well, I wasn't making a case for the intelligence of anybody, now was I?

[Binkie]

You do realize, Loy, that alot of Nicaraguans in the rural areas didn't even know about the revolution for several months after it toppled the government? And alot of them only learned this by hearing it on the radio. This is how in touch many rural communities were with just mainstream politics. You think mainstream religion was somehow further reaching than government rule? If the Pope were to delcare tomorrow that homosexuality is totally acceptable, how long do you think it'd take for rural areas in Nicaragua to hear about it... if this were still 1985?

As for your first point, do you see me refuting their religious affiliations? No. What you do see me refuting is the relevancy of what they did or thought, considering the main issue is USAID money going to churches and former organizations, not 50,000 Sunday Susans.

As for point two, you must just neglect the fact that very real Roman Catholic priests and Archbishops were afflicted by the government's censorship and sweeping arrests. People that belonged to very real Roman Catholic Churches that were very much against the government arresting their own priests and insulting Archbishops publicly. That's not going to piss any Church organizations off? It's almost ludicrous how you recognize Roman Catholic Churches that were pro-FSLN, but the ones that were anti-FSLN? Not real Roman Catholic Churches. This almost sounds like the propaganda some of these organizations were putting out against the FSLN. If you really want to whitewash this entire issue, I challenge you to come up with a list of all the oraganizations and churches that recieved funding from The American Institute for Free Labor Development in Nicaragua durring the mid to late 80s. Otherwise, you can just call your own insinuations "bullshit" if you've nothing to back them up with.

No, I don't find that arguement to be legitimate unless we're talking about an openly leftist historian who feels it's alright to editorialize history (i.e. inserting information that has no factual basis for it's inclusion). If Ted Rall wrote the book, yeah, I'll pull that card. But really, I'm not seeing how this differs from my version, especially since I provided a quote from Daniel Ortega that said essentially the same thing: many prominent Roman Catholics did not condemn Contra violence and this was the source of the FSLN's general aggitation with the RC Church. If anything, that quote goes more to support my point of the FSLN and RC Church having a very rocky/non-friendly relationship than anything.

Well, don't expect me to buy [that the use of grenades in math problems was actual disinformation] without reference to something solid I can verify. As I've already provided interviews with the very guy who oversaw the entire program in Nicaragaua and the teaching material that a Harvard sponsored school teaches, I'm more inclined to lean towards believing them than taking your vague word for it that there was testimony somewhere that said it was just propaganda. I'm not calling you a liar, Loy, but you do see my plight here.

[Loy]

Binkie, Binkie, Binkie.....

People in the rural areas only heard about the revolution months after they toppled Somoza? For the most part, this is a fairly questionable statement. I mean, sure there were people who were ignorant of what was happening on the political arena, but that has less to do with them being rural, and more with the fact that their personal lives don't afford them to think too much about politics. This isn't a situation that happens just in Central/South America, but the whole world. (for example, I just explained to 4 different people, at different times, all last week that there was a smoking ban in Washington state. In case you didn't know, it passed 65/35 a few months back. Thus, Washington has now fallen prey to savages just like other formerly wonderful places like California, Massachusettes, and Austin....sorry, I'm rambling).

why do I question this statement? Simple-remember those Christian Base Communities? The ones that sprung up all over the place (if I remember correctly, they numbered in the few hundreds)? The ones that were energizing the people around them on all aspects political? Well, they were mostly in rural areas.

And you keep trying to tie the Catholic Church in with the anti-Sandinista movement. However, this is a false assertion. The church in fact had very few problems with Liberation theology (the movemnt that provided the Sandinistas not only with most of their ideological thrust, but the support neccesary to overthrow an American backed dictator), and these problems were mostly in interpretation, not politics.

Does this mean that there weren't priests who had a problem with the Sandys? Of course there were. However, they were NOT acting in accordance with what Rome said, and for you to assert that by funding these priests (who, on a basic level, were actually hereticals. A point I tried to communicate with a bit of sarcasm with my "not real catholics' statement. Again, have to remember that sarcasm doesn't work well unless it's blatant enough for 4 year olds to get when dealing with the written form), we were supporting a major Roman Catholic movement is....well, it's laughable once all the facts are looked at.

Speaking of looking at all the facts....you keep bringing up a censure of Catholics....in actuality it had nothing to do with their religion (Nicaragua was one of the few countries in the western hemisphere that made freedom of religion one of the cornerstones of their theological make-up....not suprising considering that most of their supporters did so out of religious beliefs) and everything to do with these priests calling for the execution of all Government employess who were priests and preachers that didn't step down from either position. THIS was the main thing that caused tension between Rome and Managua.

As far as the passage backing up what you were asserting-umm....you were asserting that there was a hatred between the church and the Sandinistas, and that the Sandinistas were fanning the flames. Looking over the passage (and the rest of the book, which, by the way, was my main source of information for all the above statements...however, most every bit of library-diving I've done has basically re-itterated all above points), nothing of the sort was said, or insinuated.

As for the "fun with hand grenades"....am doing a bit of library diving Monday, so will put that alongside with what else I'm working on. Will post when I find it again. (note to self-write notes for shit like this, damnit!!!)

[Binkie]

More about being ignorant? ... So what? They had access to the information? I guess there were Americans who were in Boston too that were totally ignorant of the Revolution back in 1776? Local laws are one thing (hell... for the longest time I didn't know it was illegal here to walk backwards on Grant St while eatting a doughnut in city), but revolution is a little hard to ignore. Especially in urban areas, where it's not only being recruited for, it's being fought. I suppose there were ignorant folks in Tehran too that had absolutely no idea that the Shah was being overthrown back in '79 too?

I know that A.) they were in rural areas, and B.) they weren't entirely too active in the political arena, due to the fact they didn't have a clue what was going on half the time. Especially with their own religion. Why? Catholocism was banned from broadcast in '81. Not a whole lot had TVs in the first place out in these areas, but it was the one way they did keep in touch with the Catholic Church. So what was that programing replaced with? State run crap that involved camera crews traveling around with police when they just happened to stumble across, of all things, Catholic priests doing questionable things under fishy circumstances. Yeah, I'd say they weren't too in touch with the otherside.

You're the one who keeps bringing up LT, a belief that the Vatican condemned not once (1984), but twice (1986). It was too close to Marxism, officials said, which only contained a "kernal of truth" (according to John Paul II). And in fact, John Paul II again condemned clergy members who supported the FSLN in Nicaragua when he visited Managua. So you can tie it in on the local level to some degree, but not to the Vatican, or for that matter, the Catholic Church as whole.

I'll ask you to check into this information - unless you want me to come back with a list of official quotes and sources. The Vatican did indeed condemn Liberation Theology and support for the FSLN, not only through John Paul II, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). So priests who did actively oppose the FSLN were actting on orders from Rome. So yes, take a moment to look over your facts again.

They called on the assassinations of government employees? So when did Archbishop Miguel Obando, President of the Department for Religious of the Latin American Bishops’ Conference at the time, ever call for the assassination of anyone associated with the FSLN? Again, I already cited the worse thing some of these church officials did against the FSLN, which was to protest against unlawful arrests, not call for assassinations. The laywers that were also arrested for trying to legal defend these detentions? I know they certainly didn't do anything of the sort either. So don't try to sell me on different information, especially since I'm pretty sure you can't name the people I'm refering to. Not if you're only going off of once source of information.

Yes, I stated that they fanned the flames, which they did, but did I say they started the fire? No. But again, that's part of my over-all point (not what I was saying your quote directly asserted), which has simply been that there was obvious conflict between the Catholic Church and the FSLN durring the 80s. So yeah, what I said that quote supported was one of the quotes I brought up from Daniel Ortega, himself. That quote was:

"The conflict with the church was strong, and it cost us, but I don't think it was our fault ... There were so many people being wounded every day, so many people dying, and it was hard for us to understand the position of the church hierarchy [who refused to condemn the Contras]."

I urge you to look into other sources as well for information on Nicaraguan relations with the Roman Catholic church as well while you're diving for information. Going off of just one source isn't always the best thing to do. I mean, hell, I've gone off of maybe 20. But yeah, if you're able to find a verifiable source, I'll concede that point in a heartbeat. I was just not able to find it. :P

[WolfMoon]

Geez, get a room already you two!

[edible_eye]

here ya go, loy. someone who sees it your way. /\

[AlexZello]

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?