US *supports* terror when "necessary"

www.guardian.co.uk...

"Independent human rights groups estimate that there are more than 600 politically motivated arrests a year in Uzbekistan, and 6,500 political prisoners, some tortured to death. According to a forensic report commissioned by the British embassy, in August two prisoners were even boiled to death.

The US condemned this repression for many years. But since September 11 rewrote America's strategic interests in central Asia, the government of President Islam Karimov has become Washington's new best friend in the region.

The US is funding those it once condemned. Last year Washington gave Uzbekistan $500m (�300m) in aid. The police and intelligence services - which the state department's website says use "torture as a routine investigation technique" received $79m of this sum. "

Just one more example fo the US turning a blind eye when it's allies are involved in human rights abuses. How can the US really expect anyone to take them seriously when they turn a blind eye to human beings being boiled to death?

Originally posted by dom

How can the US really expect anyone to take them seriously when they turn a blind eye to human beings being boiled to death?

You'd be the first to moan if the US took military or economic action against Uzbekistan.

Come on dude, admit it. Own up.

Hey, maybe that is a job for *Ta-Da!* Super-U.N.! They can go kick some major life-saving butt like they did in, I dunno, Rwanda?
Remember that place? You know, where the U.N. told the Tutsis they would be protected if they laid down their waepons? Yeah, and then the U.N. stood by and watched as the Hutus massacred approximately 1.1 million men women and children and raped and tortured countless more.

Seems we don't have a reliable system or power anywhere on this world to be just and fair and help the innocent while spanking the evil.

I don't believe anyone has ever been drawn and quartered in American history. Can you say the same for Britain?

Every other #ing major nation in the world supports terrorism for personal gain, not just the US


Get off our nuts, go hug a tree!

This article seems to written from a very pro-muslim biased point of view. I'm not doubting its figures on the aid and feel for those who it singled out to tell their plight. I'm just wondering what tactics this muslim group are using to "liberate" and if liberate is substituted for another more suitable word like "overtake"? We know that despite their propaganda that they are as prone to violence as any other group in the world although not face to face violence as much as terrorism. Could this funding be in line with the War on terror and could this article be a tool to only muddy the water a little more?

I'm not trying to put it down but I will have to research this further. You don't mind if both sides of the argument are lighted do you?

Here's some links to some info on Uzbekistan and aid programs as well as human rights reports from 1999 and 2003. I've not had a chance to really do more than scan through them so I'm not sure if they support Dom or not but if we are all in it for the non-political truth, it shouldn't hurt.

www.state.gov...

usembassy.state.gov...

usembassy.state.gov...

www.state.gov...

www.usaid.gov...

travel.state.gov...

www.usaid.gov...

I will say that what I read from the 1999 report, I won't be planning my vacation for there. I'm not sure how its changed in 4 years or if much progress has been made but from the linked article to Tommy Frank's interview there, not all but a good portion of the Muslim representation stems from terror groups. I'd say like my first assumption that thats the key reason for any involvement the US might have. Anyway, I'll try to get more info but thats it for me today, people.

Russia conquered Uzbekistan in the late 19th century. Stiff resistance to the Red Army after World War I was eventually suppressed and a socialist republic set up in 1924. During the Soviet era, intensive production of "white gold" (cotton) and grain led to overuse of agrochemicals and the depletion of water supplies, which have left the land poisoned and the Aral Sea and certain rivers half dry. Independent since 1991, the country seeks to gradually lessen its dependence on agriculture while developing its mineral and petroleum reserves. Current concerns include insurgency by Islamic militants based in Tajikistan and Afghanistan, a nonconvertible currency, and the curtailment of human rights and democratization.

This country is a part of the former Soviet Union so while the US needs the airports and the aid is just another way of saying they paid a lot of money for using them. The responsibility of what goes on in that region fits upon the shoulders of the Russian Republic.

In the early days of the Chechen
uprising the combatants who supported the choices of the Chechen leadership tried to take control of the Belly of Russia by force. At that time this particular country was probably integral to its success.







[Edited on 28-5-2003 by Toltec]

My point isn't that the US should attack Uzbekistan, just that the US should say "don't boil people to death, it's not nice", and then ensure that none of their aid money goes to the secret police who are doing these crimes.

That's all I'm saying.

And let's not get onto Rwanda, and Albright's persistent dragging of feet which meant that there was no UN resolution to supply new troops to the region for months after the initial reports of massacres started coming out. The US even apologised following Rwanda for it's ineffectual response. So let's not just blame the Dutch(or was it Danish) troops who were protecting a compound containing 3000 civilians, while being surrounded by guerillas, who were told to pull out because there was no backup available...

Why is it that everyone wants to run away from responsibility???

Take responsibility for your actions.

That goes for all.

Dom is merely keeping it real.

For this is real, and those that want to find a way to exuse it are only lying to themselves and turning their backs on mankind.

In the end there are no exceptions.



Abe

well I`m sure some would argue over it but the piece on the link below is certainly food for thought whether you believe it or not.

www.nexusmagazine.com...

Independent human rights groups estimate that there are more than 600 politically motivated arrests a year in Uzbekistan, and 6,500 political prisoners, some tortured to death. According to a forensic report commissioned by the British embassy, in August two prisoners were even boiled to death.

As far as keeping it real it would be better if articles would refer to the sources of information.

Which Independent human rights group?

Who's forensic report and how did the Brits get it out of the country?

Let�s understand each other the article implies that the British Embassy applied its assets in that country to secure a forensic report with respect to citizens of that country which were tortured.

It seems very suspect without any tangible evidence to back it up.

To be honest I have seen a lot of Guardians articles since I have been posting here.

They seem to report a lot of things and base it on such as what is above and/or secret documents or top secret conver-
sations.

It does sound terrible but given what has been presented to date I have to ask where is the data to support it?

[Edited on 29-5-2003 by Toltec]

The Guardian (or Grauniad as it's known for it's many typos) is the most extreme of the UK's left wing broadsheet media. It has a terrible reputation for printing stories that hold no basis in fact.
It is one of the worst of the worst.

Unfortunately in the UK we don't seem to have a single newspaper that prints reliable news.
I gave up reading newspapers years ago for news value. I read them now only for amusement.

As someone here stated earlier: if this story even has an ounce of credibility, it's a Russian problem.
Russia supposedly voiced extreme displeasure at the action in Iraq. They can hardly roll over and let the US act in their own backyard for the mere boiling of two dissidents.

"The Guardian (or Grauniad as it's known for it's many typos) is the most extreme of the UK's left wing broadsheet media. It has a terrible reputation for printing stories that hold no basis in fact."

BS, so the right would have you believe. If this was the case in reality it would be held up in litigation, as it is you will hardly ever see an apology or reversal in the paper. Talk tabloids and I`d agree but the broad sheets are n`t the crap you make them out to be.

I wonder when America will be boiling its dissidents.....

Originally posted by cassini
I wonder when America will be boiling its dissidents.....

About the same time we realize that if we boiled all of our prison lifers, we could feed Ethiopia!

Originally posted by cassini
the broad sheets are n`t the crap you make them out to be.

You're kidding me right?
They're all owned by the same people who own the tabloids. They use the same stories only the tabloids don't beat about the bush. They know that they're printing bs so they don't even try to hide it.

The broadsheets consider themselves grander. They use longer words and bigger sentences to get the same bs across.


And as for litigation? Yeah, sure. The Uzbekis have a few million to waste in the UK legal system. Pfft. Give me a break.

I found it very interesting that the Violence Policy Center released a public media attack last year on Barret Industries

www.barrettrifles.com...

VPC alledged that Barret should be shut down because some of thier (very fine made) .50 caliber rifles were found in Afghanistan by US troops, and pointed out that these weapons had the potential to be used to shoot down US helicopters, destroy US vehicles and kill US troops.

Mr. Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center (VPC) has obtained information from the recent trial of a suspected terrorist and has taken several facts out of context to suit his anti-gun agenda. Mr. Diaz would have you believe that the U.S. gun industry is so greedy, evil and un-American that it can and would sell guns to terrorists. Based on Mr. Diaz� misleading information, news articles are appearing stating that Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. sold guns to Bin Laden and that now our troops will face these weapons.

What is the truth? Well, during the 1980�s it must be remembered that the U.S. was supporting the Afghanistan �freedom fighters� or Mujahedeen in their fight against the Russian invaders. As part of the U.S. initiative, various types of small arms, ammunition and even anti-aircraft Stinger missiles were given to these �freedom fighters� in support of their cause. In retrospect we can say that we learned too late that our former friends would become our enemies, and yes, our troops now face the very weapons our government supplied the opposition.

Well, thats pretty clear isnt it?

www.barrettrifles.com...

Very clear Dragon, buisnesses will sell to anyone. why should the US be the only ones to use such things? Its only fair, but then again...

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Very clear Dragon, buisnesses will sell to anyone. why should the US be the only ones to use such things? Its only fair, but then again...

Well, keep in mind that the US government was the one paying for these weapons, and encouraging companies to sell!

Its sad in a way because if people in that country are really being abused this article does not help.

The only part of this article, which has a real credibility, is that there really was a very serious attempt to overthrow that government as well as every other government, that is a part of the Belly of Russia.

Had they succeeded they would have probably been re-supplied by Moslems
in China, given that at the time the transition between the Soviet Union
and the Russian Republic was very
new.

The potential responses if such an opera- tion was a success could be anywhere between a Worldwide Thermonuclear war (had Russia become fixated on the idea that China was supporting such an act) and the strengthening of Al-Quaeda
to an extent, that its forces would have specifically numbered in the millions.

I don�t know Dom but my impression is it seems we need more than just the word of a tabloid.

What are your thoughts?

[Edited on 30-5-2003 by Toltec]