U.S. blasts Uzbekistan government

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
The U.S. State Department Monday said it was deeply disturbed by reports Uzbekistan troops opened fire on protesters, killing about 500 people.

“We are deeply disturbed by the reports that the Uzbek authorities fired on demonstrators last Friday,” department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

Some 500 people were reported killed during the weekend as Uzbekistan troops fired at protesters in the town of Andijan. On Friday, demonstrators stormed a prison there and freed detainees, including those with alleged links to terrorist groups.

Boucher said Washington had urged Uzbek officials in Tashkent and Washington to exercise restraint. He also criticized the demonstrators, saying, The armed attack by civilians on the prison in Andijan and other government facilities is the kind of violence that we cannot countenance in any way.

He urged President Islam Karimov’s government to restore full access to news broadcasts and the Internet so people can know what’s going on.

feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=6037cfb53c9ad584
 
40.png
gilliam:
deeply disturbed

exercise restraint.
Click to expand...
Not exactly the terminology of “blasting,” IMO.
 
UPDATE from Instapundit: A reader who prefers anonymity sends this link to a report that we’re actually doing more than I realized:

Over the past few years, Uzbek president Islam Karimov has been warned by the U.S. to either get with the democratic process, or risk getting overthrown. Even though the United States withdrew most foreign aid last year over this issue, Karimov believes that he can tough it out. But the United States has been funding pro-democracy political organizations in Uzbekistan.

Sounds like a good time to tighten the screws some more. Michael Totten says it’s time to dump Karimov, and suggests that the White House agrees.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Much more on Uzbekistan at Registan.

MORE: Jim Hoft has posted further thoughts on Uzbekistan.

STILL MORE: Reader Robb Minneman is a bit unclear on the anonymous-source concept, and sends this:

I’ve never written before, but I felt the need to do so this one time.
You’ve been awfully tough on Newsweek (and deservedly so!) in the last
couple of days, but today, you did something just like they did. In the
update to your post on Uzbekistan and democracy movements
(instapundit.com/archives/023050.php)), you quoted an anonymous
source.

Now this guy may not be anonymous to you, but really, how does this make you any different than Michael Isikoff? You’ve got just as much to worry about, in terms of trust issues, as Newsweek does. Maybe more so, as you’re a newer outfit.

Er, except that the anonymous reader isn’t the source for the information. He just forwarded me a link to a public source for the information. That’s not the same at all.

Anonymous sources, of course, aren’t always bad – but you’d better either (1) be sure that what they’re reporting is accurate; or (2) be truthful about your uncertainties in that regard. But sending someone a link isn’t anonymous sourcing at all.

MORE STILL: Tim Russo says I’m not being tough enough on Uzbekistan. I think, however, that he misunderstood my original post.

instapundit.com/archives/023050.php
 
isn’t Uzbekistan the country that we are sending prisoners to for interrogation… isn’t this the country that has reportedly boiled people in order to get information…?

i could be wrong…
 
If it wasn’t for Uzbekistan providing us with basing, we probably would not have been able to take Afghanistan
 
gilliam said:
If it wasn’t for Uzbekistan providing us with basing, we probably would not have been able to take Afghanistan
Click to expand...

And you don’t consider that to be a conflict of interest?

I would hardly think the language used by the State Department to constitute a “Blasting” sounds more like a sop to the international press to me.
 
40.png
walstan:
And you don’t consider that to be a conflict of interest?.
Click to expand...
We are at war. Our enemy was in Afghanistan.

Conflict of interest on whose part?
I would hardly think the language used by the State Department to constitute a “Blasting” sounds more like a sop to the international press to me
Click to expand...
You need to read the updates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top