NationStates Jolt Archive


. . .and Uzbekistan covers up the truth

BLARGistania
23-05-2005, 05:56
Uzbeck leader alters history (http://nytimes.com/2005/05/23/international/asia/23uzbek.html?hp&ex=1116907200&en=4aeb99f12ae300d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

That's right. The President of Uzbekistan, a Mr. Islam A. Karimov has decided that he wants his government to cover up the truth of what happened during the riots in which dozens of people died due to troops firing into a demonstaration. Karimov's official explanation is that the troops were fighting Muslim militants intent of overthrowing the government. He states that civilians killed during the clash were either shot be accident or my militant bullets.

What journalists are uncovering though, is that the official story is not the truth. Many of the survivors fled to neighboring Kyrgyzstan. Interviews with the survivors are indicating that a failed coup d'etat set off the protest, and all of the protestors were civilians. The survivors are saying that government troops opened fire on them as they marched through the streets chanting 'freedom'.

Karimov's response has been to deny any access to the city for diplomats, human rights investigators and journalists. Good move there. With a cover-up in progress who would be able to tell the truth of what happened during the protest. An official government version and the version the survivors gave. But the survivors are easy to quiet.

Why is Karimov altering the truth? That's what I want to know. He has given his story and that story is consistantly inconsistant with the stories every survivor or refugee of the incident is giving. And now, there is no access to the city. Something is going on that Karimov doesn't want the world to know. Perhaps its the fact that militants wern't moving to overthrow him in the march. Maybe he's a bit too oppressive? And now he wants it covered so he looks like the good guy. Well, with the survivor stories getting out to the world through Kyrgyzstan, he'll have a tough time trying to convince the world of his side of the story.
Cathenia
23-05-2005, 06:34
the question is... will the policeman of the world stand by while 'freedom' and 'democracy' are so openly and viciously trampled?

Cathenia
Subterranean_Mole_Men
23-05-2005, 06:39
the question is... will the policeman of the world stand by while 'freedom' and 'democracy' are so openly and viciously trampled?

Cathenia
HA ha of course Uzbekistan is a US ally!

It is funny how these "orange revolutions" seem to only succeed in countries where the US doesn't like the government. :rolleyes:
BLARGistania
23-05-2005, 06:47
the question is... will the policeman of the world stand by while 'freedom' and 'democracy' are so openly and viciously trampled?

Cathenia
apparently so. The US has yet to do anything substantative about this.
Cathenia
23-05-2005, 07:15
Like I recall a certain middle eastern chem-gas dropping dictator was Ronnie 'the Gipper' Reagan's fair haired boy when Iran was the big bad enemy.

Cathenia
BLARGistania
23-05-2005, 07:16
what the hell does 'the Gipper' mean.

Did he Gip a lot? And what is 'gipping' exactly?
Niccolo Medici
23-05-2005, 07:24
what the hell does 'the Gipper' mean.

Did he Gip a lot? And what is 'gipping' exactly?

(You know this right? Its just a joke...right?) It was from a line in a movie that Ronnie starred in. Ronnie played a character in the movie who was injured or sick...I can't remember which. But he's sitting in bed and tells them to do one "for the Gipper"
BLARGistania
23-05-2005, 07:28
(You know this right? Its just a joke...right?) It was from a line in a movie that Ronnie starred in. Ronnie played a character in the movie who was injured or sick...I can't remember which. But he's sitting in bed and tells them to do one "for the Gipper"

nope, actually I did not know that. Never watched (or even heard of) Ronnie's movies.

Okay then. Dumb nickname.
Cathenia
23-05-2005, 07:29
It's from his movie - as you may (or may not) know, Ronald Reagan was a Hollywood actor (as was Nancy I believe!). There was this movie, All American, where he played a football hero named George Gipp or "the Gipper" who died young and at the key moment in the film, the coach, his old friend tells the team that when the chips are down Gipp asked him to tell them to 'win one for the Gipper'. That became his campaign slogan.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/19981103.html
http://lamb.archives.nd.edu/rockne/speech.html

Cathenia
Patra Caesar
23-05-2005, 07:31
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1980000/images/_1984459_pipeline-ap300.jpg
Niccolo Medici
23-05-2005, 07:32
nope, actually I did not know that. Never watched (or even heard of) Ronnie's movies.

Okay then. Dumb nickname.

Many indeed thought so. It seemed a culmination of the policies that Ronald Regan proposed...as much based in fiction as fact. The Gipper was seen by some as unable to tell reality from fantasy, mixing the two as needed for political gain.

Take Star Wars as an example, how much of the proposal was based off of a conversation about theoritical weapons not even on the drawing board? Yet he proposed it and a new kind of weapons buildup began.
Helioterra
23-05-2005, 07:51
HA ha of course Uzbekistan is a US ally!

It is funny how these "orange revolutions" seem to only succeed in countries where the US doesn't like the government. :rolleyes:
It isn't that simple. Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyztan and all the others at least had some kind of opposition. They had elections, they had choices. The revolution took place because the elections weren't fair. But Karimov and Uzbekistan are in another league. There is no opposition. Demonstrations have been violently broken. Anyone who dares to say something against Karimov will be thrown into jail (or boiled alive...)

And US did like the old governments of Ukraine and Georgia too.
CJ Holdings
23-05-2005, 08:18
The US has got military bases in Uzbek, so how much they're going to help is debatable.

Personally, I think that revolutions brought about by the people of the country themselves are, in the long-term, often more stable and long-lasting than a revolution propped up by an invading power. I think Uzbekistan may eventually revolt full-scale; the only question depends on the timing. And the timing largely depends on whether the army continues to support the government or not.
Tazikhstan
23-05-2005, 11:44
If people are interested in hearing perspectives on the Uzbeki regime, check out http://www.craigmurray.co.uk

Craig was the former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan and lost his position for opposing the regime. He also ran as a candidate for MP in my constituency, attempting to get rid of Foreign Minister Jack Straw but unfortunately the people of Blackburn once again voted for Labour because they always vote Labour.

I was fortunate enough to be one of the volunteers helping on Craig's campaign, and the man's knowledge, intelligence and compassion are an example to us all. A lot of information in the "war against terror" comes from torture used by the Uzbeki government and endorsed by the CIA and British Security Services.
Dragons Bay
23-05-2005, 12:28
In China steps. :D