Opinion of the Contras

[Velasco]

"Terrorist" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Really?

Freedom Fighters. That they abused human rights is undeniable, of course, but so is the fact that the regime they were fighting was much worse. There would not be many (certainly not a majority of people) people arguing that mass rapes that took place when the Red Army drove back Nazi Germany makes the force and their struggle as a whole HPs, since the alternative was so much clearly even worse; this is a comparable, if smaller-scale, example.

WTF? I understand that you don't like the Sandinistas, but your claim is utterly moronic. It's not possible to make a comparison between Nicaragua in that period and Cuba or even Venezuela nowadays (the arrest of the mayor of Caracas and other stuff). See, as representative of the legal opposition, your beloved Violeta Chamorro was never disturbed. It's not appropiate to talk about the atrocities of the Red Army in the final stage of WW II to justify the Contra and Nazi Germany to compare it with the FSLN.  That's even more stupid. Stop saying words, plz.

[Velasco]

"Terrorist" isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Really?

If one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, then clearly the pejorative association with the word is subjective.

Then you are on a slippery slope here. According to your thesis, terrorism of any political sign is justified because, in accordance with the different subjectivities, any terrorist is a freedom fighter. Wonderful.

[Velasco]

The support from the Reagan administration distorts our understanding of them. The Contras were a diverse group, unified only in what they were against.  They certainly were not uniformly right-wing by any measure and drew the largest share of their popular support from (often indigenous) peasants.  

The largest group by far (the so called Nicaraguan Democratic Force) was comprised by members of the Somoza's National Guard (notorious criminals) and an organisation of emigrés based in Miami (mainly businessmen and professionals). That force operated in the northern border and had the support of a few Miskito people, but the 'indigenous resistance' mostly vanished by 1987 when the government granted autonomy to that community. There was a smaller group operating from the south led by Edén Pastora, aka Comandante Zero, which was less relevant in what regards the 'military operations'. Check Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare.

The Contras were tied to drug traffickers, according to this:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm

However, that is of little importance. Every terrorist is a freedom fighter, according to some.

[Velasco]

FDN was formed through an alliance encouraged by the US between the Somoza Guard and MILPAS - a Sandanista breakaway group that gathered its support among peasants from the mountain region. The latter group were far more numerous.

Oh I forgot that faction led by a certain Tigrillo. I don't know in which sources are you sustaining your claim, but some authors think that the importance of the MILPAs was very very relative. In other words, more important in symbolic and propagandistic terms than in military strength or actual support among peasantry:

From Peasants in Arms by Lynn Horton (Google Books):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In any case, do you think the Contra struggle had legitimacy as a liberation movement, or was it only a tool to fight a national liberation movement which coincidentally dethroned a bloodthirsty dictator and loyal friend of the USA called Somoza? Do you think that terrorists are "good guys", as long as they are "our guys"?