Talk:La Penca bombing
|WikiProject Nicaragua||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Terrorism||(Rated C-class)|
This article needs further critical elaboration. The events of la Penca bombing and the contra war in general are portrayed in a manner that downplays the role the US government played in the Contra war (this is well documented in academic literature too extensive to list, also in countless news accounts from reputable sources like the NYTimes, Cristian Science Monitor, Washington Post, etc.) Eden Pastora abandoned the post of vice-minister of interior, renounced to the FSLN and fabricated a story of going to Guatemala... instead he went on to create a "Southern Front" against the Sandinista government. While he may be characterized as a "revolutionary" by some, at the time he was in the FSLN he was seen as an opportunist and hungry for power by most. In this context portraying him as a "revolutionary" could be misinterpreted as him still being in the FSLN--that was not the case. --Guillermo 08:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
First off, the article in its existing state is already hardly pro-US or even NPOV. It propounds the Christic Institute theory tying the CIA and John Hull to the bombing, when in fact it remains unclear who did it. It goes on to link the CIA to gunrunning, drugrunning, and terrorism. This may be your idea of "downplaying the role of the US government," but it isn't mine.
This is supposed to be an article on La Penca, not the "contra war in general." It does not need to proclaim any grand theory about the nature of the war, any more than an article on the Battle of the Somme needs to resolve the causes of World War I. However, it seems to me that you wish to "play up" the role of the US. For instance, changing "civil war in Nicaragua" to "Contra war against Nicaragua." That sort of edit seems to be stuck in the 1980s, when the Sandinistas would actually argue that there was no civil war going on, just "CIA mercenaries" marauding for pay. Even the Sandinistas now acknowledge that there was real discontent and that it was a civil war.
And that civil war was not waged against the country, but rather, a party in that country. You may feel that the interests of the FSLN and Nicaragua are identical, but clearly a large portion of the population felt otherwise. The majority booted them out in 1990, and have rejected them in every election since. If the war was being waged against "Nicaragua," why did it end when the Sandinistas were defeated? It ended because the war was being fought against the Sandinistas, not the entire country. Also, it is hardly new for foreign powers to back factions in civil wars. Perhaps you intend to change all references to the "Spanish Civil War" and "the civil war in Spain" to "Germany and Italy's Falangist war against Spain?"
As for Eden Pastora, you do have a point about possible "misinterpretation." The article says little about Pastora, which "side" he was on, and why someone might want to kill him. I could see how someone unfamiliar with the subject could get the wrong idea. However, your edit seemed to be part of a POV that the FSLN are the only "true" revolutionaries, and that anyone who opposed them could not be a revolutionary. As for Pastora being an "opportunist and hungry for power," that's clearly POV. Similar charges have been made about both Trotsky and Stalin, for example. I myself would agree that being "the tenth man in a country ruled by nine" probably fed his dissatisfaction. But it could be argued that shunting him off to figurehead posts was shabby treatment that was not commensurate with his popularity and his importance in the insurrection (though, given the lack of administrative ability he demonstrated as ARDE leader, perhaps matched to his capabilities). But he was also distrusted as ideologically suspect, and to dismiss his ideological motivations out of hand is POV. --Groggy Dice 17:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- When? It currently says " in Nicaragua in 1984". Can we get a particular date?
- What plot of July 20th?
- categories —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJFJR (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- What other sources? It currently says: Other sources indicate that the bomb was planted by an individual named "Tony"... RJFJR (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's called the La Penca bombing, but what's La Penca? A place? Where? RJFJR (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
PS - I cut this bit out because I couldn't find anything to support it.
- Other sources indicate that the bomb was planted by an individual named "Tony" whose real name was "Amac Galil." Manning (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In the last several days, I've tried to beef up the La Penca entry, using source material (the Miami Herald, The Tico Times). The section was very spare and omitted relatively recent developments. I took out the sentence that said that mostly American journalists were victims of the attack, when in fact, by my count there were only three Americans among the affected journalists. I also included a section about the revelations of Swedish journalist Peter Torbiornsson, which I think is relavent to a complete understanding of La Penca. Don't know why someone reverted the section, so I reverted it back.-- John McPhaul188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC), 05-05-10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)