PDA

View Full Version : Centralasia's "Saddam"


plebben
09-23-2004, 06:53 PM
TASJKENT. In Islam Karimov's centralasian dictatorship its dangerous to be overly religous. A beard can be enough to be labled as an islamic terrorist.
Islam Karimov is just as ruthles as once was Saddam Hussien and have many similarities with the very same, but with one difference; he is an ally to the USA.

Men with beards can be force to shave them off. Women with tehir veil set up wrong can be stoped on the street. They are suspected to be overly religous or worse; sympathies for muslim fundamentalists, by the Uzbeki government reffered to as "Wahhabit's" after a pureist sect rooting back to Saudiarabia.

Uzbekistans presiident Islam Karimov runs a merciless war against real and imaginary muslim fundamentalists. Up to 7000 religous and political prissoners are held captured in stateprisons.
Torture in the form of rape, electrical shock and scalding in boiling water affects thousands every year.

The number of prissoners sentenced to death is classified to the outside world but president Karimov said it to be around a 100 every year.
Religous expressions that are not approved by the state are seen as suspect or illegal. The control off teh press is absolute and no opposition is allowed.

This hard preasure creates a good environment for extreemists to bloom in, says Alisher Taksanov, writer and analyst with background in the Uzbeki foreign ministry.

- Moderate Muslims are pushed towards fundamental thinking. When there is no legal way to express their way of thinking they are drawn towards fundamentalism.

Under the latest few years Uzbekistan has been a target for three terrorist attacks, and to Karimov this is a proof that the fundamental islamists are a real threat.
In February of 1999 a bomb exploded in Tasjkent. The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) was accused for the action, but without any steadfast proof. IMU had close ties with the Talibans in Afgahnistan and opreated from bases in Tadzjikistan. But after the terror attacks of september 11th and the US war in Afgahnistan IMU are concidered heavily weakened.


After September 11th dictator Ismlam Karimov became a keyally in centralasia in connection with the US war in Afgahninstan.

- Karimov has for a long time tried get an opening to the americans. He disslikes, even hates, the Russians. Now he saw his chance, and he could say to Washington: Look what we're facing, the same threat as you are.

This made a breakthrough for Karimov who offerd Pentagon Airforce facilities in the war against Usama bin Ladin an dthe Taliban. The Us saw its chance to finaly get a steady foot in on the euroasian landmass, right inbetween the keynations; Russia, China and Iran. So the Whitehouse stopped harrasing Karimov about human rights, all in accordance with the parrol:
He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard.

European chritizism has been harsher:
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development eralier this year pulled back its subsidies, something the International Monetary Fund already did sometime earlier with the motivation that corruption in Uzbekistan is on such a level that "the country can no longer be considered a marketeconomy".

Worth noticing is how Great Britain, the Us most faithfull European partner, has acted. In October 2002 the british ambasador Craig Murray appeared infront of the diplomatic council at a humanrights conference in Tasjkent and violently attacked the Uzbeki reginms crimes against human rights. He claimed that Uzbekistan "is no longer a working democracy" and that torture is part of the system.

In a letter to the british foregin ministry, in the forerun to the Iraq war, Craig Murray condemned what he saw as Washingtons double standards; this he wrote after he saw George W Bush speaking of "dismanteling the terrorist machinery" and "remove the torture chambers" - This obviously only applied to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, not Karimov's Uzbekistan.

This is an article in todays DN (Dagens Nyheter), swedens biggest morning newspaper.
Ive translated it all to english so please ignore spelling and grammar errors.

Link:
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=323440&previousRenderType=8
It's all in swedish so i guess none of you here will understand unless youve taken a crashcourse in swedish.(I guess Norwegian and Danish could do it for you, to an extent :P)

Viper
09-23-2004, 07:19 PM
So wait a minute. That is messed up.

First, they don't want us attacking any other countries.
Now they do?

Perhaps we will go after them but not so damn fast, we just did Afghanistan and Iraq.

Which is it? Do they want us to keep our noses in America or take a big wiff of world ass and clean up what stinks?

plebben
09-23-2004, 07:34 PM
No it says that its a double standard. They let him go on with his buisness and keep him as an ally as long as it fits them. When they dont have any use for Karimov anylonger theyll hopefully screw him. And rightfully so.

But the double standard is to face him with a smile when you can use him to later turn the cheek on him when he no longer is of any use.
The US did critizise him a lot before, but when he came in handy in the war against Usama and the Talibans your governemnt suddenly pretends its OK to team up with someone just as cruel as Saddam Hussein if he can help you go after Usama.
No matter how you turn it around it remains a double standard(its called double moral in swedish when you go after someone like saddam who murders and truture his own people but team up with Karimov who does the exact same thing, with the difference that he wants to be friends with the US. I believe its called double standards in english, or?)

Viper
09-23-2004, 07:45 PM
Double standard is the phrase but still beyond the point. This guy is mad we won't go after another country, one that we will get hated for all over again for offensive strikes to another country.

Guess that double standard is swinging both ways.

plebben
09-23-2004, 07:52 PM
Yeah but still you must understand where the double standard lies?
Even if you dont like the fact that it is there.
Right?

Viper
09-23-2004, 07:59 PM
I see it and imagine we will do something about him soon, a la Saddam. Remember, he was our ally against Iran in the 80's.

plebben
09-23-2004, 08:09 PM
Exactly...

Viper
09-23-2004, 08:28 PM
Then instead of him bitching about it he should anticipate us to take him out too.

If we can use a bad guy to help capture anothe rbad guy and not to pay for it, lose life for it, or it cause any problems then their is no reason not to do it.

plebben
09-23-2004, 08:35 PM
Yes but have you ever heard of this guy before? or Uzbekistan for that matter? OK you personally maybe.. but honestly how many americans have that are not extremely interested in foreign buisness?
He is no threat to america.
The chance that any american president would do anything about him is aprox nada. Isnt that, actually, something you aslo thinks sounds very reasonably? if not most reasonably even.

Viper
09-23-2004, 08:40 PM
Heard of him once, know the country well.

Most Americans had never heard of Osama Bin Laden before 9/11 either.


Will any other country bring him to justice for that mater?

plebben
09-23-2004, 08:49 PM
Osama? any democratic country would hand him over ti the US because you would demand it.

Viper
09-23-2004, 08:53 PM
I'm referring to pre-9/11. No one here had really heard of him. Just like Islam Karimov.

plebben
09-23-2004, 08:55 PM
oh.. yeah thats very true

The Dude
09-24-2004, 03:49 AM
I have heard of both the country and the guy. I dont't know much as I should honestly. But I am aware of the situation. I just don't like to comment on things I don't know/understand.

Travis
09-24-2004, 04:28 AM
Umm...they're in there investigating, right? They are a world power, right?

WHY DON'T THEY FIX IT?! Why are we bad because we didn't do it? They have the power to do it, so they should!

Viper
09-24-2004, 04:31 AM
Exactly, they get pissed when we do it and then cry when we don't. Yet no one else will anyway.

Travis
09-24-2004, 04:35 AM
I mean, seriously! Why can't some other major democratic nation handle these problems instead of bitching to us?

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

:cry2:

plebben
10-15-2004, 01:45 PM
well the point is not that youre not doing anything about it, its that he is your ally.
sorry for bumping this.. i had forgot about it.
No one is complaining that you dont do anything about it bu tthat you do something about someone else that is about as dangerous to his people but chose to be ally with another bad guy.
I totaly understand the logic in why the US governemnt does it. But any just person would agree it doesnt look very good.

Viper
10-15-2004, 03:13 PM
Well, there we 3 bad people over there (Of course there are much more) and we could have spent a few decades trying to legally remove each or taken the quicker route. No other country was doing anything else about any of them so who are they to question our methods? I don't like the idea of helping a bad guy myself but at least something is happening.

Who is better?

The one who never tried or the one who tried but failed?

Michael Bluth
10-15-2004, 03:42 PM
From that article he didn't sound nearly as bad as Saddam - but not to say he's bad. Suzuki got it right with the "damned if we do, damned if we don't" comment.