Act Acting » Acting Agents » U.S. pro-Stalinism (Re: Latest news on FMLN downing of an helicopter)

U.S. pro-Stalinism (Re: Latest news on FMLN downing of an helicopter)

Question:

[I have deleted ".headlines" from Newsgroups line] The only way to reply to this is with an analysis of the overall situation showing how insane the entire Net "debate" has been all along. The enclosed copy an email response, read to the end, will hopefully be a step in that direction. -HB It seems the only method Harel uses is to sidestep the original question (about the helicopter) and to barrage you with volumes of "background" information which is supposed to enlighten you

BISHOP SAYS AVERTED ATTENTION ENDANGERS HUMAN RIGHTS [...] On January 18, the independent Human Rights Commission (CDHES) revealed that [...] civilians killed in 1990 by: killed by Salvadoran army killed by FMLN 1,005 27 (plus over a hundred to unknown "death squads;" see Amnesty quote below As has been priviusly posted… I will continue with such "diversionary tactics" in the future. [I will not continue to try to reason with Chris "Amensty International = communist propaganda" Mauritz] –Harel "…November and December were reported as particularly fatal months, with 115 and 118 civilian deaths. Over these two months the army allegedly killed 97 civilians and the FMLN, four." "Tens of thousands of people have been the victims of extrajudicial execution and "disappearance" by El Salvador’s armed forces since 1980… None of the armed forces officers responsible **** have been brought to justice, most remain in positions of command." [Conclusions, p. 44] –Amnesty International report, "El Salvador: `Death Squads’ — A Government Strategy" "Amnesty International has concluded that the Salvadoran `death squads’ are simply used to shield the government from accountability for the torture, `disappearance’ and extrajudicial executions committed in their name. The squads are made up of *regular army and police agents*, acting in uniform or plain clothes, *under the orders of superior officers*." [emphasis added] [Who Runs the ``Death Squads''", pp. 8-9] [Ibid] "President Bush described the Salvadoran revolutionaries as `terrorists’ and the Salvadoran Government as `a democracy’. Wrong on both counts. "The revolutionaries took up arms only after the military and economic elites of El Salvador had rejected all avenues of peaceful change for more than half a century. No competent observer doubts that the Salvadoran revolution is home grown, authentic and enjoys wide popular support… [the revolutionaries'] demand that the military purge itself of its most notorious abusers of human rights was derided as `absurd, ridiculous and impossible’ [by the government] –Former U.S. ambassador Robert White "Fifty years of lies, fifty years of injustice, fifty years of frustration. This is a history of people starving to death, living in misery. For fifty years the same people had all the power, all the money, all the jobs, all the education, all the opportunities. Those who did not have anything tried to take it away from those who had everything. But there were no democratic systems available to them, so they have radicalized themselves, have resorted to violence. And of course this second group, the rich, do not want to give up anything, so they are fighting." Former president Duarte, on the causes and roots of the revolution, 1980 interview For more information about ACTIV-L or PeaceNet’s brochure, # Harel Barzilai for Activists Mailing List (AML) # To join AML, just send the message "SUB ACTIV-L <your full name" to confirming that your name has been added to the list. Other addresses or "ucscc!umcvmb.missouri.edu!LISTSERV"] List Administrator:

Response:

. . . I know this will come as a shock to you, but the Cold War ended a couple of years back. We won. Countries like El Salvador can only afford to import "billions in weapons" when they get massive subsidies, which will no longer be forthcoming from the Soviet Disunion. Also, without the possible subsidies, we can make their economies scream anytime we want to. The idea that any of these places could be a serious threat is absurd.

Where have you been lately? The cold war never ended, it was merely hidden under the *dishonest* rhetoric of Gorbachev. Glasnost and Perestroika were nothing more than another chapter in the Soviet Union’s long history of taking advantage of the West’s ignorance of the nature of Communism. Mr. "Nobel prize" Gorbachev timed his return to true form perfectly, didn’t he? I hope you’re right that the USSR can’t afford to give billions of aid to El Salvador. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take billions, nor even millions for the USSR to help El Salvador threaten the rights of American citizens. Besides, if Gorbachev continues to fool the West, he’s going to get us to pay for the restoration of the Soviet economy, and thus bolster their ability to aid budding Communist countries like El Salvador. In the long run, history is determined by the ideas people hold. As has been made abundantly clear by history, a country dominated by Communist ideology sooner or later (usually sooner) becomes a threat to the countries around it. Just imagine the damage that a little country like El Salvador could do if it took over the Panama canal. — Control Data Corporation ****** == "What a save!!!" ==

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Excerpts from netnews.soc.culture.latin-america: 25-Jan-91 Re: U.S. 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: "The contras have ROUTINELY attacked civilian populations. Their forces kidnap, torture, and murder health workers, teachers, and other government employees." — Americas Watch(*) [Emphasis added] "_Terrorism_ is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against NONCOMBATANT TARGETS by subnational groups or clandestine state agents" — U.S. Department of State, _Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1983_, Sept. 1984. (*)From the Americas Watch report _With Friends Like These_, edited by Cynthia Brown (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985). For the contras’ history and human rights practices, see also Christopher Dickey, _With the Contras: A Reporter in the Wilds of Nicaragua_ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), and Reed Brody’s _Contra Terror in Nicaragua: Report of a Fact-Finding Mission, September 1984-January 1985 (Boston: South End Press, 1985) "There can be no doubt, on the basis of what we head and saw, that a planned strategy of terrorism is being carried out by the contras along the Honduras border" –Chairmen of Americas Watch and Helsinki Watch, after a pesonal visit to study the "great divergence between President Reagan’s rhetoric and the conclusions of the [Americas Watch] report" on contra atrocities. Orville Schell and Robert Bernstein, Wall St. Journal, April 23, 1985. "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out. They where killed by slitting their throats, and pulling the tongue out through the slit." Survivor’s account of a contra attack. Jonathan Steele and Tony Jenkins, Manchester Guardian Weekly, Nov. 25, 1984. "..The contras cross the border from their bases in Honduras to commit acts of sabotage: burning cooperatives, blowing up bridges, killing and kidnapping teachers, health workers, and farmers." The victims of contra terror include people like the Barreras, a couple in their 60’s who were well known and respected in the town of Esteli’. Last year the Barreras volunteered to help pick coffee near the boder because they felt this was part of their duty as Christians. The couple was kidnapped by contras and taken to a town in Honduras. There they were kept outside for four months and tortured daily as an example –their torturers said– of what would happen to Christians who support the revolution. Later, other coffee pickers who managed to escape brought back word that the Barreras were dead. By September, 1983, the contras had killed nearly 700 Nicaraguans and had caused $600 million in damage to the economy…" –Oxfam America report, Sept. 1983 For more information about ACTIV-L or PeaceNet’s brochure, # Harel Barzilai for Activists Mailing List (AML) # To join AML, just send the message "SUB ACTIV-L <your full name" to confirming that your name has been added to the list. Other addresses or "ucscc!umcvmb.missouri.edu!LISTSERV"] List Administrator:

Response:

What you posted was billed as

"billed as"? I was quoting. But never mind reality, right? }I will restate my position, again, that this debate is as relevant as }an inquiry into the number of angels which can dance on the head of a }pin. In other words, you couldn’t care less that your third world heroes murdered three helpless wounded American soldiers. You disgust me.

In other words, it _follows logically_, from an ethos where one does care about human life, hence about the advisors (accomplices to mass- slaughter though they may well have been (after all, I don’t believe in the death penalty, hence I still don’t say they "deserved" it)), that one doesn’t wish these murders to be used to justify the aiding of the true mass-murderers -as identified by Amnesty, other human rights groups, church groups, and other "subverstives"- namely, the Salvadoran regime, in murdering 30 and 300 and 3,000 people. These observations are transparent to anyone who is prepared to read with an open mind the many files posted on the background and documented actions and nature of the Salvadoran regime and the war; unfortunately, the basic reality of a superpower supporting a regime of mass-murder to suppress the peasant population is too clear when the superpower is the Soviets, but this simple reality becomes "inexpressible within the doctrinal system" when the superpower is the United States, the betrayers ("leaders") of which country being conveniently identified with it, while its supporters, who oppose the policy of these betrayers branded the "traiters;" one simply invokes the charge of "communism" against the peasants movement, and suddenly, all logical thinking comes to stop, death-squads become justifiable, proof of charges against The Enemy unnecessary, no attrocity too gruesome to bear, and no degree of transparency about the struggles for human rights and food are allowed to come in the way of the "anti-communist" doctrine. Harel "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities comitted about them." — George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," 1945

Response:

Excerpts from netnews.soc.culture.latin-america: 25-Jan-91 Re: U.S. 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.

Um, John, I know this will come as a shock to you, but the Cold War ended a couple of years back. We won. Countries like El Salvador can only afford to import "billions in weapons" when they get massive subsidies, which will no longer be forthcoming from the Soviet Disunion. Also, without the possible subsidies, we can make their economies scream anytime we want to. The idea that any of these places could be a serious threat is absurd. — Everything yields to success, even grammar.

Response:

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.

Response:

writes: The whole thing boils down to one question – which government would you rather have in El Salvador – one which is content with making life miserable for its own citizens, or one which wants to expand the misery as far beyond its borders as possible?

First of all, the idea that the FMLN (or the Sandinistas) are greatly concerned with exporting revolution is mostly just left-over moonshine from the Reagan Book of Scarey Fairy Tales. 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.

You forgot morally and politically. My guess is you have no interest in morality, so let’s talk about politics. Our aid to the Salvadoran colonelocracy is a major source of friction between the U.S. and virtually all the other governments in the hemisphere. It also guarantees that whoever replaces the present regime will have good reason to be hostile to the U.S., just like the Sandinistas. Therefore, since the U.S. can’t tolerate hostile regimes, it will be necessary for us to go on forever pouring money and murder into Central America to make sure nobody ever comes to power that doesn’t owe us for keeping the people from hanging him from a lamp-post. A communist government in El Salvador *would* be a definite threat, both militarily and economically. The U.S. is not so much supporting the current government as it is fighting the communists.

Horse shit. The colonelocracy refuses to fight the FMLN in any effective way, because if it got rid of the FMLN the dollars would stop pouring in. Our aid serves only to maintain a status quo. If this conflict were happening outside the western hemisphere, and the threat to our freedom was minimal or non-existent, *then* the proper policy would be to just leave them alone. But since the foes of the current Salvadoran government represent a clear threat to our freedom, the aid we are giving is fully justified.

Thank you for providing a magnificent demonstration of the utter cynicism and bankruptcy of our Central America policy. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!

Response:

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. The U.S. is not so much supporting the current government as it is fighting the communists. If this conflict were happening outside the western hemisphere, and the threat to our freedom was minimal or non-existent, *then* the proper policy would be to just leave them alone. But since the foes of the current Salvadoran government represent a clear threat to our freedom, the aid we are giving is fully justified.

This is the kind of thinking that kept us arming S Hussein for 10 years. Are we Americans with morals, or just "end-justifies-the-means" amoral beings? (and in the case of SH, we should have not supported him either way!). pete shirley

Response:

This is not as evident to me as it apparently is to you -neither sentence is obviously true.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 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. The U.S. is not so much supporting the current government as it is fighting the communists. If this conflict were happening outside the western hemisphere, and the threat to our freedom was minimal or non-existent, *then* the proper policy would be to just leave them alone. But since the foes of the current Salvadoran government represent a clear threat to our freedom, the aid we are giving is fully justified. This is the kind of thinking that kept us arming S Hussein for 10 years. Are we Americans with morals, or just "end-justifies-the-means" amoral beings? (and in the case of SH, we should have not supported him either way!).

Pete, You might be surprised to hear that I agree that the U.S. should not have supported Hussein. The fact that our government *did* support him is not a consequence of ". . . the kind of thinking . . ." that you decry, but a consequence of the absence of that kind of thinking. The U.S. government has no real foreign policy, i.e., no consistent set of principles for protecting the rights of Americans from violation by foreign powers. It is the lack of these principles that leads our government to take actions that are not required to defend our individual rights – the support of Hussein is just one of the many examples. In my judgement, the U.S. is the only country that was deliberately founded on the proper moral and political ideas. Unfortunately, those ideas were never made explicit, and therefore didn’t gain the cultural or political influence they should have. As a consequence, we have a government with no guiding principles, and thus no way to secure our individual rights over the long term. I think that both the war in Iraq and the support of the Salvadoran government against the FMLN are consistent with a proper foreign policy. At the same time, I recognize the fact that the U.S. *doesn’t have* a proper foreign policy, and that this has likely contributed to or created both situations. The use of force in retaliation against a rights violator like Saddam Hussein is part of a proper foreign policy. The same is true of supporting the use of force against leftist guerillas in El Salvador – their ideology is anti-individual rights, they are in a position to violate our rights, and they have a sponsor with the same ideology (and a long history of acting consistently with it). — Control Data Corporation ****** == "What a save!!!" ==

Response:

that would pose a threat to its "national security." I guess the Soviet Union is justified then in sacrificing the lives of hundreds, or tens of thousands of civilians.

But we all know that the benevolent Soviet people, beloved of God and Man, would never dream of mistreating anyone, let alone murdering them. One could never confuse these kindly folk with the mass-murdering, war- mongering, evil and corrupt Yankee capitalist pig-dogs, could one? No, the Soviet Union would be Directly Supporting Murder. You can’t

See above. murder again, and again, and then explain to the judge you were morally justified because your Administration says all sorts of bad National Security things would happen otherwise.

I submit that a nation’s first task is to insure it’s security and the balance of power within it’s sphere of influence. It’s citizens would accept nothing less. the fun of mutilating peasants.

I am continually impressed by your rational and calm approach, which enables you to avoid emotive claptrap and dispassionately discuss the facts of life. Until you are willing to step back and look at the picture, this debate it useless. You need to step back, and evaluate the national security threats claims under the light that these are created precisely to justify what would otherwise be unjustifiable.

I have stepped back and evaluated the national security threats, and concluded that I would rather put up with a right-wing dictator than a left-wing dictator. Sorry about that, old son, but after 50 years on this earth, you’re going to have a tough time convincing me that communist-backed governments in Central/South America are worth supporting in any way, shape, or form. How do you justify sending arms to Iran? Oh, to get the hostages out, and make friends with moderates.

Maintain the balance of power and the justification is clear. How do you justify making friends with Chinese killers? Oh, to improve their human rights (a-la-constructive engagement)

China does not represent a threat to the balance of power. How do you justify sending weapons to a murderer like Saddam? Oh, the public won’t notice, while we don’t mention the Kurds etc on the news; then, when it’s to our political advantage to make Saddam Mr Hitler, we suddenly blast all that info on the news; no one will ask why Bush never mentioned this before, while he was sending "aid" to Saddam; no one will ask how Saddam got his dangerous weapons, which we must now go in and kill 10,000’s of Iraqi’s to take away from Saddam.

Aid was sent to Iraq to maintain the balance of power in the Middle East, and to insure that neither side could win in the war between Iran and Iraq. How do you justify doing in Centra America something like what the

The balance of power must be maintained. I don’t have the time to deal with all the "reasoned opinions" which are in actuality regurgitations of the propaganda system here.

Are you suggesting that anyone who disagrees with your postings here are simpletons and fools for doing so? We hate mass-murder.

Response:

Oh jeeeez, he’s back….where do these lefties find all this time to rant and rave? Last Tuesday (Jan 22) the FMLN recognized that the americans inside the helicopter were killed by them. They said the killers will undergo trial under the FMLN procedures, but they refused to hand them to the civilian/military authorities of the government [read Amnesty'ds reports to find out why --HB] . So it turn out that for this one Chris was right.

Well, the story didn’t make sense so decided to be skeptical until all the evidence was uncovered (I’m sure it all isn’t yet, but we’re getting there), rather than jump to conclusions and take the word of FMLN propaganda (er, I mean communique). I repeatedly stated that if I was proven wrong that I would retract my statements. The only way to reply to this is with an analysis of the overall situation showing how insane the entire Net "debate" has been all along. The enclosed copy an email response, read to the end, will hopefully be a step in that direction. -HB

It seems the only method Harel uses is to sidestep the original question (about the helicopter) and to barrage you with volumes of "background" information which is supposed to enlighten you into seeing the matter from his leftist perspective. You eventually just start ignoring him, or succumb to slumber as you wade through his verbose postings. it is unfortunate for you that the day after distributing a report with eye witnesses proving that the helicopter personnel in el salvador were not murdered by their captors, the rebels admitted that they were murdered.

This has been confirmed. I’ve read several stories confirming this as well as seeing a story about it on CNN. You wouldn’t start doubting Hanoi Jane’s hubby now would you? will you issue a retraction?

Of course he won’t! Why spend the same amount of resources to document the truth when you can add in this wealth of "background" info to push your leftist political agenda and hope that people forget about the original thread? — end of quoted material — What I posted was eye witnesses *contradicting* the theory that FMLN personnel killed 2 crewmen, not "proof" that they were not killed.

Yes, but I noticed that you have not been so attentive to the evidence which cut into your political agenda. If you are going to try to disguise your blathering as news, you should at least pay lip service to showing both sides of the issues. Now, the last thing I heard was that the FMLN issued a statement saying they had decided to investigate the charges [...]

Well, I guess that you have been hiding in a cave for the last week or so. The FMLN has made statements to the press long ago that placed the blame on its unit for the murders. I will restate my position, again, that this debate is as relevant as an inquiry into the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin.

Gawd, don’t they make you take a logic course as part of your core curriculum? Be serious. [blathering mercifully deleted] Cheers, chris Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null | — Alain

Response:

# #. . . long, intro deleted . . . # #One could go on still, with ample documentation and references. My #point, then, about the head of the pin, is that the debate about aid #to El Salvador, or simply specifically about the downing of the #helicopter, can best be understood by imagining the following #scenario: # # A U.S. policy of support for Stalin during the height of the # mass-murdering gulag-state. # #. . . rest of scenario description deleted . . . # #There is just one tiny problem with this scenario – it is based on #a false conception of the players. The proper comparison to make is: # # U.S. support of Salvadoran govt against FMLN (and fellow communists) # # is like # # U.S. support of Czarist Russia against Stalin (and fellow communists) # #The whole thing boils down to one question – which government would you #rather have in El Salvador – one which is content with making life #miserable for its own citizens, or one which wants to expand the misery #as far beyond its borders as possible? The whole thing should boil down to the question of what is best for the people of El Salvador. But you don’t seem to care about that (or them), just about keeping ‘those people’ in line. It seems to me that the natural conclusion for the argument you present here is that the US should enslave the world. After all, there’s always a chance the government of a country could go against the interests of the US. And if you believe a country like El Salvador could threaten the US, then anyone could. #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. What a joke. This dirt poor, politically fractured, tiny country is a threat to the US? My god, if El Salvador could possibly be a threat to mainland USA, then the American forces in the Gulf must be in major trouble. This would be hysterically funny if I didn’t think you truely believe it. What’s next, a posting on how Belize is threatening to invade Texas? #The U.S. is not so much supporting the current government as it is #fighting the communists. Ah, here we go. It’s ok for the US to support a "bunch of assasins posing as a government" (according to a former US ambassador to EL Salvador) – after all, they’re fighting communists. Its ok to fund and train an army that has dragged thousands of people from their homes and executed them without trial, without charge – they’re fighting communists. It’s ok for the US to ensure the continuation of a government that murders priests and nuns – they’re fighting communists. Tell me – what isn’t it ok for a government to do when they’re ‘fighting communists’? Is there any point in your mind in which this government might possibly become worse then the communists? #If this conflict were happening outside the western hemisphere, and the #threat to our freedom was minimal or non-existent, *then* the proper #policy would be to just leave them alone. But since the foes of #the current Salvadoran government represent a clear threat to our #freedom, the aid we are giving is fully justified. "A clear threat to our freedom". What exactly is going to happen here? Is the newly communist government of El Salvador going to declare war on the US? Is it going to declare an economic embargo on the US depriving coffee drinkers of a specific kind of coffee? Just what is this great threat to freedom that a communist government poses? One you’ve answered that, maybe you could tell me who is proposing a communist government for El Salvador? The FMLN is socialist and the chances of them getting drawn into the Soviet sphere of influence is pretty thin given the USSR’s economic woes right now. And even if they did, would the USSR – the US’s new ally – encourage actions harmful to the US (whatever that could possibly be)? David LeBlanc

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The whole thing boils down to one question – which government would you rather have in El Salvador – one which is content with making life miserable for its own citizens, or one which wants to expand the misery as far beyond its borders as possible? 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. The U.S. is not so much supporting the current government as it is fighting the communists. If this conflict were happening outside the western hemisphere, and the threat to our freedom was minimal or non-existent, *then* the proper policy would be to just leave them alone. But since the foes of the current Salvadoran government represent a clear threat to our freedom, the aid we are giving is fully justified.

Does the fact that this "brutal, military dictatorship" has murdered tens of thousands of its people, and has kept the majority of the survivors living on the edge of starvation enter into your equation at all? What threat to American freedom would there be if El Salvador became Marxist? What threat to American freedom is there because Cuba is Marxist?

Response:

. . . much of my own writing deleted for space . . . 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. The U.S. is not so much supporting the current government as it is fighting the communists. Does the fact that this "brutal, military dictatorship" has murdered tens of thousands of its people, and has kept the majority of the survivors living on the edge of starvation enter into your equation at all? What threat to American freedom would there be if El Salvador became Marxist? What threat to American freedom is there because Cuba is Marxist?

The murdering of Salvadoran citizens definitely enters in, but only as a secondary concern. If there were a practical way to prevent abuses *without* giving an advantage to the Marxists, I would support it – stopping military/economic aid won’t do this. Let me make it clear that I *do not* approve of America’s foreign policy in general, primarily because of the complete lack of principles. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats would recognize a principle if it bit them on the nose. The U.S. cannot credibly stand up and say "We demand the cessation of rights abuses as a condition of continued support," because there isn’t a chance in hell that we’ll be consistent and say the same thing to the granddady of rights abusers, the USSR. This is a direct result of the lack of a principled foreign policy. As to the threat that Marxism poses, just look at the history of Marxism. Marxism is ideologically committed to spreading itself as far across the globe as possible, and history bears this out. There is no such thing as a benevolent Marxist government (the phrase is an oxymoron, in fact). The primary threat from Marxism in El Salvador would come from its proximity to the Panama Canal, which is extremely important to us, both economically and militarily. As for Cuba, well, they are currently incapable of posing a real threat, both because of their dire economic condition, and because we’ve made it quite clear to them (and their backers, the USSR) that we won’t tolerate the installation of nuclear weapons. — Control Data Corporation ****** == "What a save!!!" ==

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – }} Last Tuesday (Jan 22) the FMLN recognized that the americans }}inside the helicopter were killed by them. They said the killers }}will undergo trial under the FMLN procedures, but they refused }}to hand them to the civilian/military authorities of the }}government [read Amnesty'ds reports to find out why --HB] }}. So it turn out that for this one Chris was right. }The only way to reply to this is with an analysis of the overall }situation showing how insane the entire Net "debate" has been all }along. The enclosed copy an email response, read to the end, will }hopefully be a step in that direction. -HB }it is unfortunate for you that the day after distributing a report }with eye witnesses proving that the helicopter personnel in el }salvador were not murdered by their captors, the rebels admitted that }they were murdered. }will you issue a retraction? }— end of quoted material — }What I posted was eye witnesses *contradicting* the theory that FMLN }personnel killed 2 crewmen, not "proof" that they were not killed.

What you posted was billed as )Six guerrilla combatants on the helicopter crash scene could not have )executed two of three U.S. military advisors, according to four )eyewitnesses to the January 2 incident. }Now, the last thing I heard was that the FMLN issued a statement }saying they had decided to investigate the charges [...]

The FMLN is admitting that their people apparently murdered three American soldiers. }I will restate my position, again, that this debate is as relevant as }an inquiry into the number of angels which can dance on the head of a }pin.

In other words, you couldn’t care less that your third world heroes murdered three helpless wounded American soldiers. You disgust me. — Peace through superior firepower.

Response:

[...] One could go on still, with ample documentation and references. My point, then, about the head of the pin, is that the debate about aid to El Salvador, or simply specifically about the downing of the helicopter, can best be understood by imagining the following scenario: A U.S. policy of support for Stalin during the height of the mass-murdering gulag-state. . . . rest of scenario description deleted . . .

[Descriptions of U.S.-sponsored mass-murder and torture, deleted, you mean] There is just one tiny problem with this scenario – it is based on a false conception of the players. The proper comparison to make is: U.S. support of Salvadoran govt against FMLN (and fellow communists) The whole thing boils down to one question – which government would you rather have in El Salvador…

In brief, the less-impotant point to make is: (1)There is ample evidence of the mass-slaugher by the U.S.-sponsored government; what evidence is there of the Evil Deeds the FMLN would commit if it came into power? (the (0)point is that they are not trying to get into power, but force the army into reforming. This is of couse communist propaganda, unless you belief people like Amnesty International on the structure of the military and judicial system, were crimes rae committed with impunity, no Salvadoran officer has *ever* been brought to justice for the "tens of thousands" of murders 1980-1989 (same AI report), etc, etc). The important point is that (2) EVEN IF THERE WAS ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD that the FMLN were going to pose any of the ludicrous suggested "national security threats" to the U.S., the argument becomes: Because of the danger to Our National Security, we reserve the right to support the mass-slaugher of 1%, or more, of the Salvadoran population. Imagine the Soviet union justifying its support for a Neo-Stalinist mass-murdering regime because if it negotiated with rebel peasants, that would pose a threat to its "national security." I guess the Soviet Union is justified then in sacrificing the lives of hundreds, or tens of thousands of civilians. No, the Soviet Union would be Directly Supporting Murder. You can’t give the knife to the murderer and say if he didn’t have it [bad things would happen, maybe even murder] and watch him murder someone and give him another knife and justify it similarly, and see him murder again, and again, and then explain to the judge you were morally justified because your Administration says all sorts of bad National Security things would happen otherwise. As a matter of fact, there are several other holes, including the fact that if the U.S. administration really wanted to improve human rights, it could easily use the fact that the survival of the Salvadoran regime is more important to the Salvadoran regime than the fun of mutilating peasants. Until you are willing to step back and look at the picture, this debate it useless. You need to step back, and evaluate the national security threats claims under the light that these are created precisely to justify what would otherwise be unjustifiable. How do you justify sending arms to Iran? Oh, to get the hostages out, and make friends with moderates. How do you justify making friends with Chinese killers? Oh, to improve their human rights (a-la-constructive engagement) How do you justify sending weapons to a murderer like Saddam? Oh, the public won’t notice, while we don’t mention the Kurds etc on the news; then, when it’s to our political advantage to make Saddam Mr Hitler, we suddenly blast all that info on the news; no one will ask why Bush never mentioned this before, while he was sending "aid" to Saddam; no one will ask how Saddam got his dangerous weapons, which we must now go in and kill 10,000’s of Iraqi’s to take away from Saddam. How do you justify doing in Centra America something like what the Soviet Union did in East Europe (only worse in many ways; ask me for the article by Guatemalan journalist, terrorized into exile, Julio Godoy)? There’s a Communist Threat! Just like we told you about Martin Luther King being a Communist! Just like we told you those demanding the rights of working Americans to form Unions were Communists! — I don’t have the time to deal with all the "reasoned opinions" which are in actuality regurgitations of the propaganda system here. We hate mass-murder. When THEY (e.g. Soviets) do it, it shows their evil nature. Wehn WE(*) do it, it’s because we have no choice, or are trying our best, it’s not easy funding torture and rape and mutilation, really! Go bother that evil bear on the other side! Harel (*)I repeatedly mention that the very use of the word "we" obstructs clear and reasoned thinking about global reaility. After all, how could "we" not have good intentions? How could "we" be committing mass-murder, unless it was the lesser evil, despite our best, sincere efforts, or otherwise not "our" fault. At least in East Europe they knew their press wasn’t free, so it was a much less efficient propaganda system. At least they know their government wasn’t "them."

Response:

Last Tuesday (Jan 22) the FMLN recognized that the americans inside the helicopter were killed by them. They said the killers will undergo trial under the FMLN procedures, but they refused to hand them to the civilian/military authorities of the government [read Amnesty'ds reports to find out why --HB] . So it turn out that for this one Chris was right.

The only way to reply to this is with an analysis of the overall situation showing how insane the entire Net "debate" has been all along. The enclosed copy an email response, read to the end, will hopefully be a step in that direction. -HB

it is unfortunate for you that the day after distributing a report with eye witnesses proving that the helicopter personnel in el salvador were not murdered by their captors, the rebels admitted that they were murdered. will you issue a retraction? — end of quoted material — What I posted was eye witnesses *contradicting* the theory that FMLN personnel killed 2 crewmen, not "proof" that they were not killed. Now, the last thing I heard was that the FMLN issued a statement saying they had decided to investigate the charges [...] I will restate my position, again, that this debate is as relevant as an inquiry into the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin. The situation in El Salvador is that of a neo-nazi regime of mass-murderers (or, "a clique of assassins masquerading as an army," in the words of the former U.S. embassador to El Salvador, Robert White), who have been engaging in a "Death Squad Strategy," according to Amensty Internatinoal, against their population in order to squelch any calls for socioeconomic or human-rights reforms to improve the wretched conditions under which the vast majority of the population lives, so that a tiny group of elites, and the army, can continue their historical stanglehold on power. In order to accomplish this, the government has used this "Death Squad Strategy" employing so-called "death squads" (run by the army and security forces, according to Amnesty and others) to murder, torture, and "disappear" tens of thousands of Salvadoran noncombatant civilians; "Those targeted have been members of groups perceived to be in opposition to the government, or to represent a nucleus around whom such opposition could coalesce, including students, trade unionists, members of cooperatives, church workers and peasants." (Amnesty) I could go on. The record is well-documented and well known to those involved with human rights gropus. Against this regime which is indeed a clique of mass-murderers and torturers, a home grown revolutionary movement has naturally developed, seeing as all forms of peaceful protest for change had been excluded; here’s what former U.S.-backed president Duarte said in a 1980 interview, when asked about the origins of the conflict in El Salvador had to say: "Fifty years of lies, fifty years of injustice, fifty years of frustration. This is a history of people starving to death, living in misery. For fifty years the same people had all the power, all the money, all the jobs, all the education, all the opportunities. Those who did not have anything tried to take it away from those who had everything. But there were no democratic systems available to them, so they have radicalized themselves, have resorted to violence. And of course this second group, the rich, do not want to give up anything, so they are fighting." Raymond Bonner, the interviewer, was surprised by Duarte’s sympathetic explanation for the revolution, and added: "But what struck me more…was what he [Duarte] had not said. He had said nothing about Castro or Cuba. He had not mentioned the Sandinistas or Nicaragua. There was no talk of the cold war and the Soviet Union." There are those trying to promote change "peacefully," i.e., within the non-existing "democratic systems" Duarte mentioned; Amnesty reports their fate: "Efforts by El Salvador’s independent and church-run human rights organizations to investigate these killing have been hampered by the harassment, intimidation, imprisonment, torture, mutilation, extrajudicial execution and "disappearance" of their members…" — One could go on still, with ample documentation and references. My point, then, about the head of the pin, is that the debate about aid to El Salvador, or simply specifically about the downing of the helicopter, can best be understood by imagining the following scenario: A U.S. policy of support for Stalin during the height of the mass-murdering gulag-state. Stalin’s forces make a mistake and murder some prominent Clergy, whereupon U.S. administrators find themselves in shock, having long ignored the wel-known an documented record of mass-murder of less prominent Russians (peasants), decides to cut in half military support for the gulag-state. Upon hearing of human rights abuses (or possible human rights abuses) by the rebel forces of peasants who have armed themselves against Stalin and his gang of butchers, however, the U.S. administration called for renewed military aid to the Stalinist mas-slaughter machine. People on the UseNet subsequently have a heated debate about the exact circumstances of the downing of the helicopter, about the rights of a U.S. helicopter to fly in Soviet territory, etc, so that these considerations will settle whether or not to send the Stalinist regime the sencond half of the military "aid" That, is what is going on today with the U.S. and El Salvador. Documentation and references galore available upon request. Sincerely, Harel

Response:

. . . long, intro deleted . . . One could go on still, with ample documentation and references. My point, then, about the head of the pin, is that the debate about aid to El Salvador, or simply specifically about the downing of the helicopter, can best be understood by imagining the following scenario: A U.S. policy of support for Stalin during the height of the mass-murdering gulag-state.

. . . rest of scenario description deleted . . . There is just one tiny problem with this scenario – it is based on a false conception of the players. The proper comparison to make is: U.S. support of Salvadoran govt against FMLN (and fellow communists) is like U.S. support of Czarist Russia against Stalin (and fellow communists) The whole thing boils down to one question – which government would you rather have in El Salvador – one which is content with making life miserable for its own citizens, or one which wants to expand the misery as far beyond its borders as possible? 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. The U.S. is not so much supporting the current government as it is fighting the communists. If this conflict were happening outside the western hemisphere, and the threat to our freedom was minimal or non-existent, *then* the proper policy would be to just leave them alone. But since the foes of the current Salvadoran government represent a clear threat to our freedom, the aid we are giving is fully justified. — Control Data Corporation ****** == "What a save!!!" ==

Response:

Permalink
In: Acting Agents

You online HQ for everything ACTING

Home

Act Acting

U.S. pro-Stalinism (Re: Latest news on FMLN downing of an helicopter)

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Categories

Popular Posts