PDA

View Full Version : 200 reported dead as shooting goes on in Uzbekistan protests



Templar Knight
05-15-2005, 00:54
UP TO 200 people were reported yesterday to have been killed and many others injured after security forces fired machineguns into crowds protesting against the authoritarian regime of President Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan.

The shooting began on Friday night and continued yesterday in the eastern city of Andizhan as forces loyal to Karimov tried to prevent an uprising similar to those that have ousted the leaders of three other former Soviet republics in the past two years.

“Tell the world that what is happening is terrible. They are executing us — unarmed civilian people,” said Lutfulo Shamsutdinov, a human rights activist who claimed to have seen about 200 bodies being loaded onto lorries and a bus in the city centre.

Last night 60 bodies were counted at a mortuary in Andizhan. Many others were said to have been taken away by relatives and there were suggestions that some had been driven out of the city in an attempt to conceal the scale of the apparent massacre.

A crowd of 1,500 people opposed to Karimov gathered defiantly around a further 15 bodies lying in one of the main squares after a day of sporadic gunfire. One opposition figure claimed that the death toll could eventually reach 500. Hundreds of Uzbeks fleeing the country later stormed government buildings in the border village of Korasuv 30 miles east of Andizhan, attacking troops and setting fire to cars.

Several British tennis stars taking part in a tournament in Andizhan were caught up in the fighting. Richard Bloomfield, David Sherwood, Arvind Parmar and Jamie Delgado were among seven British tennis players who escaped from the city yesterday under armed guard.

The violence began late last week when a large group of militants attacked a police station, seizing a number of weapons. The armed insurgents then stormed a prison, freeing 23 men who were on trial accused of religious extremism and 2,000 other prisoners.

As demonstrators took to the streets to demand Karimov’s resignation, a government building was seized and several police officers were held hostage. Heavy street fighting broke out and the military was called in to quash the protests.

“The soldiers were shooting wounded people dead, finishing them off in the street. Some were children,” said Azim Karimov, who was injured as he searched for his two children.

“How can this be? Don’t they have children of their own? What the hell is our president thinking? How can he order to shoot at his own people?”

The president, who has been in power since 1989 and is regarded in Washington as an ally in the war on terror, was said to have travelled to Andizhan when the trouble began but returned to Tashkent, the capital, after six hours.

He denied that orders had been given to shoot protesters and blamed the violence on Hizb ut-Tahrir, an outlawed Islamic group. “Nobody ordered troops to fire at them,” Karimov told a press conference. He acknowledged that 10 soldiers and “many more” protesters had been killed.

Witnesses said that on Friday 1,500 people gathered outside a cinema where some of the worst bloodshed ensued.

“Among them were some 20 armed people. The rest were unarmed, mainly children and young people,” said Shamsutdinov. “The security forces fired into the crowd from an armoured personnel carrier cannon. Dozens were killed on the spot. The building was destroyed.”

One unnamed witness described how a taxi in which he was a passenger was hit by the army in the city centre.

“A boy sitting next to me was hit in the head,” he said. “There was blood everywhere. I took him myself to the hospital where he is now dying.”

There were unconfirmed reports that several civilians were killed after militants who had barricaded themselves in a government building used them as human shields.

Yesterday the impoverished industrial city was almost sealed off as telephone links were blocked. A government broadcast warned that “all journalists and visitors should leave within 30 minutes”.

The Uzbek authorities also jammed foreign television channels inside the country as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan closed their borders.

The White House called for restraint on both sides. Karimov, a Soviet-era Communist party boss, has been allied with President George W Bush since giving permission for US forces to launch operations from Uzbekistan against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The president said his troops had been forced to shoot at demonstrators to put down an uprising. He said infiltrators from Kyrgyzstan were among the organisers of the violence and the authorities had intercepted telephone calls to Afghanistan from those taking part.

Attempts to negotiate with the militants had failed, he said, because their ultimate goal was to create an Islamic state.

In March protests in Kyrgyzstan culminated in the storming of the presidential building. President Askar Akayev fled the country and later resigned. Fearing the same fate, Karimov stepped up his campaign against suspected Islamic militants.

With 26m people, Uzbekistan is the most populous of the former Soviet central Asian republics. Analysts believe turmoil there could spread to other countries.

“The militants had hoped that the chaos we saw in Kyrgyzstan would help them,” said Karimov. “But Uzbekistan is different and our people’s goals are different from the misery of the Kyrgyz people.”

Craig Murray, the former British ambassador, warned of a risk of further bloodshed in Uzbekistan in the days ahead. “I have felt for some time this sort of protest was about to happen and these events have confirmed those fears,” he said yesterday.

“I have spoken this morning to several friends in Tashkent and it perhaps reflects the clampdown on the media that they are unaware of what is happening. It is potentially very dangerous.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1612806,00.html

Kaiser of Arabia
05-15-2005, 01:05
wait the presdien'ts first name is Islam?

PanzerJaeger
05-15-2005, 01:55
The White House called for restraint on both sides. Karimov, a Soviet-era Communist party boss, has been allied with President George W Bush since giving permission for US forces to launch operations from Uzbekistan against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

He's sure cashing in his political chips fast.. too bad we need him.

Steppe Merc
05-15-2005, 02:51
He's a murdering bastard, and you still want to use him? Use countries that aren't total assholes! And Uzbekistan? How much help can they really give? ~:confused:

We ought to be helping the rebels or whatever you want to call them, or at very least take the government off of our "friends list". It's obviously very corrupt, and not the sort of people we should be allying with.

PanzerJaeger
05-15-2005, 03:02
Look at the location of his country. We need him much in the same way we need Pakistan.

bmolsson
05-15-2005, 04:49
Who needs enemies with allies like this.... ~;)

Steppe Merc
05-15-2005, 17:29
Exactly. If we tolerate this, we ought to ally ourselves with everyone. A lot easier that way...
And to think we still won't trade with Cuba, but just gave this guy a warning because we need him...

ICantSpellDawg
05-15-2005, 17:53
Exactly. If we tolerate this, we ought to ally ourselves with everyone. A lot easier that way...
And to think we still won't trade with Cuba, but just gave this guy a warning because we need him...


i totally disagree with this statement
he is a temporary ally

we have allies like this with the hope that we can retain the power to correct these types of regimes over a long period of time

by picking fights, not alienating everyone at the same time
and eventually encouraging change - we are able to strategically isolate enemies and put off other fights

it is much easier for us to sway allies, anyway

Steppe Merc
05-15-2005, 17:57
But how can we claim to be the moral center of the world, and be respected on our actions against bad people when we support just as bad people? I mean, between Russia, Uzbekistan, Arabia, Pakistan, and a whole bunch of others, it's just as bad as the people we've declared as bad guys.

Byzantine Prince
05-15-2005, 18:01
But how can we claim to be the moral center of the world
I doubt anyone considers America the moral center of the world(now or ever).

Steppe Merc
05-15-2005, 18:05
My point was what right do we have to tell others what is right and wrong when we support people who are most deffinetly doing things wrong?

IliaDN
05-15-2005, 18:05
Well it is not bad it is just ordinary for a country to take any actions that will lead the state the profitable way.
Actually USSR wanted the same thing ( in my opinion ) that USA want now - global dominance ( at least economical ).

ICantSpellDawg
05-15-2005, 18:05
But how can we claim to be the moral center of the world, and be respected on our actions against bad people when we support just as bad people? I mean, between Russia, Uzbekistan, Arabia, Pakistan, and a whole bunch of others, it's just as bad as the people we've declared as bad guys.


who ever said that he was "a good guy"?

are you saying that the only way to be a good country is to alienate yourself entirely?

or rather that we should be allies with everyone?

you honestly dont understand the concept of picking your battles?

can you propose an alternative to the way in which we handle our touchy aliances? should we support coups of every government around the world and be edged out of competition in their spheres? eventually that would lead to less power to alter the situations in troubled parts of the world

im interested in hearing alternatives

JAG
05-15-2005, 18:24
Steppe you are just realising your countries foreign policy has no morals other than greed and self preservation?! Wow take your time. It is the reason the world doesn't believe Iraq is for the good of the Irai people in 'getting rid of a tyrant', because that is simply not how the US works - me, me, me. ~:)

Read a book by Chomsky and have your eyes opened.

ICantSpellDawg
05-15-2005, 18:28
Read a book by Chomsky and have your eyes opened.


do yourself a favor and do just that
and read ALOT of it

i came to some of my conclusions from reading some of his ideas

and honestly, out of his madness, there are many lessons

discovery1
05-15-2005, 18:35
Read a book by Chomsky and have your eyes opened.

Media Control: He talks to you like you're a child. Don't bother with that work. Just be cynical. Can't comment on other works.

*sighs* It wouldn't be so bad(not by much though) if W didn't go on and on about the war against tyrrany. Maybe he plans to stab our current allies in the back down the road. Oh so many deserve it.

ICantSpellDawg
05-15-2005, 18:43
Maybe he plans to stab our current allies in the back down the road. Oh so many deserve it.

we do take them to task down the road, but in a way that "allies" take one another to task

Kaiser of Arabia
05-15-2005, 19:32
Steppe you are just realising your countries foreign policy has no morals other than greed and self preservation?! Wow take your time. It is the reason the world doesn't believe Iraq is for the good of the Irai people in 'getting rid of a tyrant', because that is simply not how the US works - me, me, me. ~:)

Read a book by Chomsky and have your eyes opened.
Your nation wouldn't be half of what it is without our nation, so maybe you should reassess your opinions of the world.

PanzerJaeger
05-15-2005, 19:50
Jag is acting as though doing things for your country's own interests and doing things for another country's interests are mutually exclusive actions.

Did Chomsky teach you that? ~;)

Byzantine Prince
05-15-2005, 19:54
Your nation wouldn't be half of what it is without our nation, so maybe you should reassess your opinions of the world.
The UK would be huge without your nation as a separate entity.

JAG
05-15-2005, 20:38
Your nation wouldn't be half of what it is without our nation, so maybe you should reassess your opinions of the world.

And your nation wouldn't exist if it wasn't for mine. Need we continue this pathetic debate Capo?


Jag is acting as though doing things for your country's own interests and doing things for another country's interests are mutually exclusive actions.

Did Chomsky teach you that?

They are not mutually exclusive no, but in reality they are. What it means is that it is just co incidential if it benefits other countries and if it benefits the US to renegade on certain aspects even though they will mess another country up, they will do it. In the long run it is mutually exclusive.

Also I am not even saying the US position is rare, most countries look after #1 - that being themselves - but unfortunately the US like to kid themselves they are the holiest of the holy and are morally superior because they look after others etc, etc. Which is bollocks. Other countries at least accept they are only out for themselves, the US likes to pretend and kiss their own arses, which is very annoying.

Steppe Merc
05-15-2005, 20:44
Steppe you are just realising your countries foreign policy has no morals other than greed and self preservation?! Wow take your time. It is the reason the world doesn't believe Iraq is for the good of the Irai people in 'getting rid of a tyrant', because that is simply not how the US works - me, me, me.
Of course I have realized that, but I still don't understand how it can be justified. And you are correct, the US supporting countries like this is why no one believes the US on its reasons, whether justified or not.


Jag is acting as though doing things for your country's own interests and doing things for another country's interests are mutually exclusive actions.
Perhaps that is correct, but it's what people think about it that often is all that matters. Bush may be doing this out of the goodness of his heart, but no one will believe that when he is buddies with Putin and this fellow, and a whole bunch of others.


who ever said that he was "a good guy"?

are you saying that the only way to be a good country is to alienate yourself entirely?

or rather that we should be allies with everyone?

you honestly dont understand the concept of picking your battles?

can you propose an alternative to the way in which we handle our touchy aliances? should we support coups of every government around the world and be edged out of competition in their spheres? eventually that would lead to less power to alter the situations in troubled parts of the world

im interested in hearing alternatives
My point was that we can't expect people to believe us about how we are helping one country's people, while we are supporting just as bad people.
We either can take the high ground everytime, or we can't. It's hypocritical to expect people to listen to us about what is right or wrong when we only will take actions against what is wrong when it serves us.

PanzerJaeger
05-15-2005, 22:21
They are not mutually exclusive no, but in reality they are. What it means is that it is just co incidential if it benefits other countries and if it benefits the US to renegade on certain aspects even though they will mess another country up, they will do it. In the long run it is mutually exclusive.

So you dont think President Bush and his team could have sat down and decided that taking out Saddam would be good for both America and the Iraqi people? Its only possible to think of the interests of the US or Iraq?

Also I am not even saying the US position is rare, most countries look after #1 - that being themselves - but unfortunately the US like to kid themselves they are the holiest of the holy and are morally superior because they look after others etc, etc. Which is bollocks. Other countries at least accept they are only out for themselves, the US likes to pretend and kiss their own arses, which is very annoying.

Who says america is morally superior to the others? Your opinion shows your liberal mentality. Simply pointing out that Iraq, for example, shouldnt have a brutal dictator isnt putting America morally above anyone, its common sense.

Also, America spent countless billions and hundreds of thousands of lives helping other people. If americans shouldnt be proud of that, you should at least acknowledge it.

Kaiser of Arabia
05-16-2005, 01:45
And your nation wouldn't exist if it wasn't for mine. Need we continue this pathetic debate Capo?
I'd take my chances. I hate english, such a simple and boring language.

Anyway, we may ally with dictators, so what? We'll get around to them soon. We only have 3.1 million men employed in our military and our retarted pentagon wants to shrink that, we cant occupy every dicatiorship. We should return the draft (i'm exempt for about 10 different reasons)

Papewaio
05-16-2005, 05:47
IMDHO

Is it in the interests of the USA to support a country that has a despotic regime?

So the all powerful US needs to ally with such a power?

Don't you think the oppressed people of this nation are going to turn against its leaders and those who support them?

Would it not now be morally just for the oppressed to strike out at their oppressors with the same scope (women and children)?

So in turn isn't this justifying an attack against the women and children of the oppressors by the oppressed?

bmolsson
05-16-2005, 08:35
It's a tough nut to crack, but I am sure that CIA can get the blame later..... ~;)

Ironside
05-16-2005, 15:57
(i'm exempt for about 10 different reasons)

List them ~D

Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 16:04
Not for nothing, but other than the word of the rebels, does anyone KNOW that this guy is a murdering thug? I honestly don't know much about him, but it looks to me like you're all jumping to conclusions that the protestors are automatically right. What's not in debate is that they stormed an armory, armed themselves, and then overran a police station to break some people out. I'm not saying that they're wrong, but that isn't Ghandi & MLK over there....

Ironside
05-16-2005, 16:38
Not for nothing, but other than the word of the rebels, does anyone KNOW that this guy is a murdering thug? I honestly don't know much about him, but it looks to me like you're all jumping to conclusions that the protestors are automatically right. What's not in debate is that they stormed an armory, armed themselves, and then overran a police station to break some people out. I'm not saying that they're wrong, but that isn't Ghandi & MLK over there....

Is the Human Right Watch good enough for you?

HRW Uzbekistan (http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=uzbeki)

The US has cut the aid to Uzbekistan in July 2004 for the human right issue BTW.

Lazul
05-16-2005, 18:18
hmm how pathetic of you "bushites" to try and defend the situation. Have to say that this situation proves that war-corporatism is the active system.

watch = http://www.knife-party.net/flash/barry.html

Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 18:27
For crying out loud, put the butcher knives down. I said I didn't know anything about it. Thank you for the link Ironside, and Lazul, don't worry, I won't ever offer an possible alternative explanation without getting your approval first.

I wasn't trying to defend anybody. But you know, the Chechen rebels say much the same things, and after the slumber party they threw at that school last year, I wouldn't care the Russians do to any known associated male over 16.

Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 18:33
hmm how pathetic of you "bushites" to try and defend the situation. Have to say that this situation proves that war-corporatism is the active system.

watch = http://www.knife-party.net/flash/barry.html

Yeah Lazul, it was statements like mine "I don't know much about what's going on" that are clearly part of a well orchestrated conspiracy by the US military industrial complex :dizzy2:

If you really believe propaganda like that movie you're posting and that it's 'proof' of your war-corporatism theory, how is it you can tolerate any of us? I would argue if you and the rest of Sweden feel that strongly against America, why don't you issue some trade sanctions? Or are you all just hot air?

Lazul
05-16-2005, 19:42
well since non of you probably are behind the foreign policiy of the US I see no reason not to tolerate you.

"I would argue if you and the rest of Sweden feel that strongly against America, why don't you issue some trade sanctions?"
haha, our dumbass politicans wouldnt even dare to call North Korea un-democratic.

pft, yeah, old mighty Sweden using trade sanctions against the US, that would be the day hahah.
Oh, and as for that movie, I never claimed that it has to be 100% correct, I just find that theory intresting.


Seams like I hit a soft spot or something, you seam rather upset? :bow:

Don Corleone
05-16-2005, 20:02
Well, if I was actually defending the Bush administration on this one, I could see you attacking me. But when I begin a statement with "I don't really know what's going on over there, but these folks don't sound like pacificsts to me", I would have thought that indicated I was taking a somewhat neutral stance. I am all about getting us out of bed with Pakistan, the Kingdom, and now, apparently, Uzbekistan. One thing at a time though...

Tribesman
05-16-2005, 20:14
Is the Human Right Watch good enough for you?
Too Liberal ~D ... get the real take on it ...direct from the US Govt.
Nice Allies (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41717.htm)
It makes you wonder if any members of the US Administration reads its own reports before they makes statements on how the people should "peacefully protest" and "change their regime through the political process" ~:confused:
Still at least things are improving , they havn't boiled anyone recently :dizzy2: