It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: U.S Ally: Uzbekistan kills over 500 protesters

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Stop using what is happening in Uzbekistan for your own political agenda....that's what I am saying.

There are worse things happening in the world, yet noone seems to be outraged about it....

And as i ahve said for the 3rd time already... I do not condone what the govenrment of Uzbekistan is doing...but do you want the US to invade Uzbekistan too?... How about we invade Sudan, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, etc all together?....... Is that what you want?... The same people who continue being outraged because we ousted the regime of Saddam?...




posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Im not for sure, but most nations are allies/friendly nations of the US.
So blaming what they have done on the US or saying that it was influenced by the US is just wrong. According to that way of thinking you are saying that US is also responsible for all the good done by us and our allies.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Subz
Worst case of governmental massacre of protestors since Tiananmen Square! Why doesnt any one care about this?



from CBS news
the worst cases of bloodshed involving a government's troops and civilian demonstrators


Governemnt troops firing on civilian protestors. I see reading whats posted is beneath you.


Originally posted by Muaddib
It is very convinient to call it now the "worse humanitarian case since Tainanmen Square" because the US sees the government of Uzbek as an ally against the war on terror.

I never said it was the "worse humanitarian case since Tainanmen Square", infact you've made that up to support your Sudan tangent.

The Tiananmen Square massacre didnt involve religous extremists killing refugees. I thought you knew your Chinese history
This is a comparison between Government troops killing civilian protestors. Your Sudanese sojourn doesnt equate and I stand by my original comments



Originally posted by Muaddib
Yes, something must be done about this, but again...using this as a political tool to try to blame the US government once more for what is happening in other countries is too convinient for those people who always have an agenda against the US government...and you are one of those people Subz.

So im not aloud to be a devoted critic of the worlds only superpower? What are you afraid of? Scrutiny? Why would you be afraid if theres nothing to hide? Your constantly bad mouthing China, do you hear me whinging about that and wanting you to stop? No, I argue the points with you. You would do better to take that stance instead of complaining about me.

Im not asking for Uzbekistan to be invaded, I dont want the United States to invade Sudan or China or any where. What I DO WANT is America not to ally herself with self-acknowledged dictators and gross human rights violators. Im not blaming what Karimov's army did on the United States and you will be hard pushed to find where I did.

The only critique of the United States here is that they are allied with the very kind of government they accuse China, North Korea, Iran, Saddam's Iraq and Afghanistan as being. Its not hard to understand my point, you just dont want to acknowledge theres concrete proof of U.S double standards here.

[edit on 16/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Subz...The Sudanese government has backed the Islamic militia and even government forces have killed over 2.4 million people since 1983..... In the first jihad which the government of Sudan called for, at least 2 million people were killed... Since 2003 at least 415,000 people have been killed by the government backed Arab militia...the government and the Arab militia have stopped aid to certain areas and this has starved people to death in that area too....

Noone seemed very outraged by this...and noone said much when Kofi Annan kept claiming that what was happening in Sudan is not genocide despite the evidence that was saying the contrary.

Last year there was the revolt in the Ivory coast. I even presented a picture of a French soldier standing over the body of a child which the French soldiers killed after shooting at a mob of protesters who were unarmed, killing several of these people....

Noone was outraged by this either...in fact very few people even responded...but when something happens and in some way the US is involved, even if it is not directly...it suddenly becomes "the worse things ever happening in the world."



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
...........
So im not aloud to be a devoted critic of the worlds only superpower? What are you afraid of? Scrutiny? Why would you be afraid if theres nothing to hide? Your constantly bad mouthing China, do you hear me whinging about that and wanting you to stop? No, I argue the points with you. You would do better to take that stance instead of complaining about me.
...........


Your anti-US rethoric, and it is anti-US retoric is getting old and boring...

Nicely done, now you are trying to turn this against me...

BTW, since when do I claim that China is behind everything that happens in the world?

When was the last post in which I blamed China for anything?....

I just wonder when people are going to start reporting things without trying to blame the US for everything.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Subz...The Sudanese government has backed the Islamic militia and even government forces have killed over 2.4 million people since 1983....

Were they demonstrators? No one is detracting from the attrocities commited in Sudan. You're raising the point to illustrate there are worse killings going on in the Worlds, no one is disputing that. If you want to go down that route you know what my reply will be, if so many Sudanese are being killed why isnt Sudan numero uno on the U.S must invade list? Why werent they mentioned in Bush's Axis of Evil speech?


Originally posted by Muaddib
I just wonder when people are going to start reporting things without trying to blame the US for everything.

I never claimed the US was behind these killings, youre making stuff up now and I dont appreciate it. The US connection is based on the fact that the United States is allied with stereotypical tyranical dictatorship which they claim to be trying to rid the worlds of, I never said they killed anyone merely that the have double standards. I never leveled blame at the US at all, try to stick to the facts.

I really dont care if your bored of my so-called "rhetoric". It goes without saying that the worlds remaining super power would be involved in nearly every facet of international affairs so the fact they appear in so many threads is just common sense. Im not going to ignore whats happening just because you tired of reading it. Thats ignorance at its best buddy. So long as I stay within the T&C of this board theres not a god damn thing you can do about it.

[edit on 16/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Sorry but even the (poor) title of this story reveals your bias subz. The first thing you say is "U.S. Ally" trying to tie the U.S. to something bad that really has nothing to do with it. Plus, you don't even use proper journalistic notation. When you say "Someone: Something" you're saying that someone is saying something, so in this case you're really saying "A U.S. Ally Says Uzbekistan Kills Over 500 Protesters" :shk:

[edit on 5/16/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I dont claim to be a journalist but if youre being pedantic my mistake is actually right. The U.S does acknowledge this latest Uzbek attrocity.

Uzbekistan IS an ally of the United States so nothing ive written is false. The whole point of my posting the story was for an agenda. Not to implicate the U.S's involvment in the killings but to highlight that they are allied to such a regime.

If you think youre going to intimidate me by criticising something done for free and with my own time then youre mistaken.

Also bias is not breaking the T&C of this board. If it were the case then hardly any one with any strong views on such subject matter would be able to post. Trying to criticise me for having "bias" is laughable, everyone is biased. Ive always been clear with my agenda, I never tried to hide the fact - actually im proud of it.

[edit on 16/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I never claimed you violated T&C of the boards, I'm often quite biased myself in places, though I try to avoid in the headlines and intro sections of my news reports.

I just feel that you've overemphasized the role of the U.S. in this story. It's an internal Uzbek problem and it's not exactly like Uzbekistan is a NATO ally, I mean we have like one airstrip there used in the War on Terror.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   

The Uzbek Army has opened fire on protesters and killed over 500 of them in the town of Tefektosh. The protesters accused the government of failing to improve living conditions. Unrest is spreading in the muslim nation of Uzbekistan who's government is pro-American and an American ally.


Can you point out where im biased and used anything that is not factually accurate in my intro paragraph?

Also adding "U.S Ally" to the headline was a conscience effort on my part to illustrate the gravity of whats happening in Uzbekistan. It was an effort on my part to elevate it up the realm of just another attrocity in yet another "asscrackistan" that no body cares about. For those people, seeing that a "U.S Ally" is behaving in such a manner would attract more readers. People who didnt know the background and international affiliations of Uzbekistan would read my story instead of ignoring it. It worked, I didnt show my bias, I stuck to the pure facts, I have no regrets.

The only thing you can fault me on is the correct use of a colon


[edit on 17/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   




It seems that, in its desire to keep Mr Karimov onside in the war on terror, the Bush administration still holds to the maxim said to have been used by President Franklin Roosevelt to describe an American-backed dictator in Nicaragua: "He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch."

- The Economist, Karimov fights back, March 31, 2004 -

For More Info Check This: Democracy in Action



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
............
Can you point out where im biased and used anything that is not factually accurate in my intro paragraph?
............


You have made it a point that the US is an ally of Uzbekistan, and that somehow the US is responsible for what happened, and what is happening there.

You claim that the US is not condemning the atrocities commited in that country, which is a lie. The US government does not condone what the government of Uzbekistan is doing, but it is not condoning the attacks by civilians on the prisons either.


Boucher said the government response also was not called for.

"We are deeply disturbed by the reports that the Uzbek authorities fired on demonstrators last Friday [13 May]," he said. "We certainly condemn the indiscriminate use of force against unarmed civilians and deeply regret any loss of life. We have urged -- had urged and continue to urge -- the Uzbek government to exercise restraint, stressing that violence cannot lead to long-term stability. And we've made that point with senior Uzbek authorities in Washington and Tashkent."

For years, the State Department's annual report on human rights around the world has criticized Karimov. And yesterday, Boucher said his government bears the ultimate responsibility for restoring order in his country.


Excerpted from.
rfe.rferl.org...

I have seen a couple of other articles where the US, and including the president has condemned the actions of the government of Uzbekistan.

Yet, the same people in these forums that do not want the US to fight countries that harbour terrorists and have vowed to attack the US now are asking for the US to take a stronger position with Uzbekistan.... You want us to invade Uzbekistan too?....

Should we invade France for the killings of unarmed civilians, including women and children of the Ivory Coast last year by hands of French forces under the banner of the UN?

How about the genocide in Rwanda in which the French provided intelligence, forces driving people from their lands, and allowing the genocide of 800,000 people because of ethnic conflicts which the government of Sudan has done. The same government that is an ally of France and Germany...and who knows who else?....

Should we invade China because of their own attrocities against their own people and others?

How about Russia for the crimes their government is commiting against Chechen people, many whom are women and children?

How about Cuba?

Maybe we should go after Vietnam too because their own government have been commiting attrocities also on their people...and there are quite a few countries, even European countries that have deals with all of these countries too.

Should we be attacking, or blame and hold accountable every country on the planet for their deals with governments who have commited attrocities against their own people? because of the attrocities commited by other countries?...

Is every country in the world responsible for what happens in other countries because they have alliances or economic/political deals?

Some countries, such as France have even directly participated in these attrocities...

Then perhaps we should blame the whole world and everyone in it just for living, because it seems every country in the world is responsible for what is happening in other countries.

Subz, you are using this as a tool for your own agenda against the US...and yes, I say your agenda against the US, because more people in the US did vote for president Bush, than those who voted against him.

---edited for errors---



[edit on 23-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I just still dont understand how we can kill people like this, kill eachother.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
We armed them for that very purpose. So what?



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
One more thing. Subz, why didn't your introduction say.. "UN member State: Uzbekistan kills over 500 protesters."

Uzbekistan is a member of the UN....and members of the UN have deals with each other, althou not all of them, and have a vote in matters of the UN.

You decided not to blame the UN for not doing anything about this... yet you decided just to say..."US ally".... implying the US has something to do with this...




[edit on 24-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
One more thing. Subz, why didn't your introduction say.. "UN member State: Uzbekistan kills over 500 protesters."



IMO, Muaddib
"UN member State: Uzbekistan kills over 500 protesters." TRUE

"US Ally: Uzbekistan kills over 500 protesters." TRUE

I can say 2+2=4 OR 2x2=4
There is no lie in either of these, So how it should be presented should be left to the presenter.


Originally posted by subz
The news story on yahoo has been renamed "Uzbek Unrest Persists, Soldiers Killed." No mention of the 500+ civilians shot to death, just the soldiers of the corrupt Uzbek regime. Whats the deal with that?


I still can see the number of casualties mentioned, can you? As far as I know, yahoo keeps appending to the news and changes the headlines. May be you could do a cached search on google if you still have the original headline



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quake
.................
I can say 2+2=4 OR 2x2=4
There is no lie in either of these, So how it should be presented should be left to the presenter.
.................


Yet Subz choose to place part of the blame on the US, and chose to name the US as the only ally of Uzbekistan.

Subz intentionally exagerated, trying to place blame on the U.S. once more for what has happened there.

He also lied, or didn't do any research about it, proclaming the U.S. has not said one word against the government of Uzbekistan for what it did against these protesters, or what the government over there has done in the past.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Let's see who an Uzbekistan local press media claims is their main strategic ally...and let's see what else have they said about the US...


The same very "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" just before the visit of Putin to Tashkent has published the article in which it was stated that Uzbekistan was considering Russia to be its main strategic ally. "This became absolutely obvious after the rather cool welcome accorded to Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of State of the USA, in Tashkent last month. The head of the American diplomatic agency was unequivocally given to understand that even for the sake of strengthening of cooperation with the USA, Uzbekistan was not going to compromise due to the numerous recommendations and instructions of Washington that was requiring to introduce significant adjustments in the policy of the country. In a polite, but rather firm manner the Secretary of State of the USA was given to understand that Uzbekistan was not going to unconditionally carry out the American "orders". It is unlikely that such a firmness could be possibly displayed at the very moment when as never before there was need for support from a "strong ally," if Uzbekistan were not sure that it was backed up by Russia whose promises could be trusted. To be more precise, one could trust the promises given personally by V. Putin to the Uzbek President I. Karimov." As for the Uzbek newspapers, they believed that the purpose of the visit was not only in solving the problem of Russia’s military assistance, but also in admitting the importance of Uzbekistan and the personality of its President. «The fact that the first visit of V.Putin to a foreign state after his election as a President will be his visit to Uzbekistan can be viewed as the admission of the significance of the role of Uzbekistan not only in the region, but also in CIS.»


Excerpted from.
www.eurasianet.org...

Yet, of course, Subz had to try to blame the US once more....



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Hey Muaddib, while youre dredging through my posts you might want to check the dates
When I posted this the Bush regime hadnt codemned the Uzbek government. You can fault me on a lot of things, but not being able to see the future is not one of them


I commend you for your efforts Muaddib I can see youre trying. I never blamed the United States for this attrocity, contrary to your claims (I love George Galloway), I never said the United States should invade Uzbekistan, contrary to your claims, I never said the United States government had never condemned the Uzbek regime, contrary to your claims.

Where the United States factors into this and the reason I highlighted that Uzbekistan is a U.S ally (and not a member of the UN or something) is for a few reasons.

1) The U.S, unlike the U.N, has a military presence in Uzbekistan.
2) The U.S, unlike the U.N, has been very vocal in its approach to erradicate dictatorships and spread democracy around the globe. It advocates force in removing men exactly like Karimov!
3) The Bush regime has fostered close ties with Karimov INSPITE of the codemnation put for by the U.S Committee on International Relations.

How you claim that im ignoring the Committee on International Relations report on how bad the Karimov regime is beyond me. I quoted how the United States government acknowledged the human rights attrocities of the Uzbek regime in my opening post! Thats the whole damn point, the Bush regime knew in advance how bad this regime was, on a par with Saddam, yet they are allied with it.

Youre arguments are once again flawed.

[edit on 24/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Maybe subz used the term "US Ally" due to the strong connection between Uzbekistan and Enron.

Uzbekistan signs a deal with Enron “that could lead to joint development of the Central Asian nation's potentially rich natural gas fields.”




This map shows how Enron planned to connect its gas fields in Turkmenistan to its Dabhol power plant. The pipelines in blue are preexisting; the rest needed to be built.

Although, I agree that the UN have to take some responsibility, it appears that any conflict in the the ex-soviet states and Middle Eastern Countries, stems from Western Corporations, like Enron, trying to get the monopoly on abandoned oil and gas deposits.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join