PDA

View Full Version : At Least 200 Protesters Killed By Troops in Uzbek Clashes



05-14-2005, 04:24 PM
ANDIJAN, Uzbekistan (AP) - Thousands of terrified Uzbeks fled for the border Saturday but hundreds angrily returned to the square where police fired on demonstrators to put down an uprising against country's authoritarian U.S.-allied leader. A human rights monitor said about 200 people were killed.

Uzbek President Islam Karimov said 10 government troops and ``many more'' protesters were killed but refused to be more specific. He spoke at a news conference in the capital Tashkent a day after the unprecedented clashes in his tightly controlled country, which he has led since before the 1991 Soviet collapse.

In the eastern city of Andijan, hundreds of protesters gathered at the square, displaying the bodies of six people killed in Friday's bloodshed and tearfully denouncing the government.

``Our women and children are dying,'' said Daniyar Akbarov, 24, who claimed to have seen at least 300 people killed in the violence.
BIG military trucks loaded with soldiers cruised the streets and troops backed by armored vehicles surrounded the heavily fortified police headquarters.


Earlier, soldiers loaded scores of bodies of those killed onto four trucks and a bus after blocking friends and relatives from collecting them, witnesses said.


Lutfulo Shamsutdinov, the head of the Independent Human Rights Organization of Uzbekistan, said he saw about 200 victims being loaded onto trucks near the square in Andijan, the fourth-largest city with a population of 350,000.


Another witness who declined to be named said ``many, many dead bodies'' were stacked up by a school near the square. The city's hospital was cordoned off and officials could not be reached for casualty figures.


An AP reporter said she saw at least 30 bodies. All had been shot, and at least one had his skull smashed. She said there were large pools of blood and hundreds of spent cartridges on the streets.


A group of foreign journalists was detained early Saturday and told to leave the city immediately.


Some 4,000 Uzbeks fled to the border with neighboring Kyrgyzstan, seeking asylum. Kyrgyz border guards were awaiting a government decision on whether to allow them in, said Gulmira Borubayeva, a spokeswoman for Kyrgyzstan's border guard service.


A move to shelter the refugees could badly strain Kyrgyzstan's relations with Karimov's government.


Friday's uprising began when armed men freed 2,000 inmates from a prison, including suspects on trial for alleged Islamic extremism.


Later, thousands of people swarmed into the streets of Andijan, seizing control of the administration building and taking city officials hostage, including the prosecutor and the police chief. Nine people were killed in those clashes and 34 wounded, the government said. Cars and nearby theaters were set ablaze.


In the afternoon, about 4,000 protesters massed in front of the building on the central square and set up a podium under a monument to an Uzbek prince, where speakers complained of unemployment and living in poverty.


But shortly before dusk, the soldiers moved in and opened fire, sending the terrified demonstrators fleeing. One man wailed, ``Oh, my son! He's dead!''


Karimov and other officials flew to Andijan during the day but returned to the capital of Tashkent on Friday night. On Saturday, the president said authorities tried to negotiate an end to the protests before firing on the crowd.


But a protest leader, Kabuljon Parpiyev, said Interior Minister Zakir Almatov called him Friday morning and heard the protesters' demands. He initially agreed to negotiations but later said the offer of talks was off, Parpiyev said.


``He said, 'We don't care if 200, 300 or 400 people die. We have force and we will chuck you out of there anyway,''' Parpiyev quoted Almatov as saying.


The prison raid and the soldiers' fusillades were in sharp contrast to the largely peaceful uprisings that sparked regime changes in the former Soviet republics of Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan in the past 18 months. Karimov is regarded as one of the harshest leaders in the former Soviet Union and apparently favors quick and decisive action against any threats to his government.


Uzbekistan is a minor oil exporter and hosts a U.S. air base to support military operations in neighboring Afghanistan following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. But it also is frequently denounced by human rights groups for torture and repression of opposition.


The White House urged restraint by both the government and the demonstrators.


``The people of Uzbekistan want to see a more representative and democratic government. But that should come through peaceful means, not through violence,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.


The focus of the jailbreak was 23 men on trial on charges of being members of a group allegedly allied with the outlawed radical Islamic party Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which seeks to create a worldwide Islamic state and has been forced underground throughout most of Central Asia and Russia.


Supporters of the 23 men say they were victims of religious repression by Karimov's secular government.


The 23 are members of Akramia - a group named for their founder, Akram Yuldashev, an Islamic dissident sentenced in 1999 to 17 years in prison for allegedly urging the overthrow of Karimov. He has proclaimed his innocence.


Akramis are considered the backbone of Andijan's small business community, running a medical clinic and pharmacy, as well as working as furniture craftsmen, and providing employment to thousands in the impoverished Fergana Valley, where Islamist sentiment runs high.


There are concerns that the valley could become a flashpoint for destabilizing wide swaths of ex-Soviet Central Asia.


Their trial has inspired one of the largest public shows of anger at the government. In recent weeks, Uzbeks have shown increasing willingness to challenge the leadership in protests, apparently bolstered by the March uprising in Kyrgyzstan that drove out President Askar Akayev and the similar ones in Ukraine and Georgia.


One of the 23 defendants, Abduvosid Egomov, sought refuge with protesters in the adminstrative building on Friday.


``We are not going to overthrow the government. We demand economic freedom,'' Egomov told The Associated Press. ``We are ready to die instead of living as we are living now. The Uzbek people have been reduced to living like dirt.''

Adolf
05-14-2005, 04:30 PM
NO PROTESTING ALOUD! SHOW ME YOUR NATIONAL I.D. NOW! No I.D. ok die.

05-14-2005, 04:31 PM
Holy shit.. I wish I wasn't against multiple accounts, because the above poster is a fucking genious.

- Arkans

05-14-2005, 04:36 PM
In all seriousness, I have a hard time feeling bad for these people. They had it made (compared to what they have now) under Soviet/Russian authority and pissed it all away. So sad, too bad.

- Arkans

Sean of the Thread
05-14-2005, 04:38 PM
Don't the Uzebeks use terrorism alot?

05-14-2005, 04:39 PM
Yes, in fact, that whole region loves to rely on terrorism. They really are one in the same with Chechnya, which are real mosters, if you ask me.

- Arkans

4a6c1
05-14-2005, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Arkans
In all seriousness, I have a hard time feeling bad for these people. They had it made (compared to what they have now) under Soviet/Russian authority and pissed it all away. So sad, too bad.

- Arkans

Arkans, wtf?? I know you know this. Every country within the Heart of Asia had precisely dick during the Soviet regime. What was produced in the fertile regions was shipped north to the richer, colder and more 'nationalist' cities who couldnt feed themselves. Farmers who grew crops never saw the food on they're own tables. Only now, within the last 11 years have the Uzbek and Kazakh people learned what its like to eat the food they produce.

In Kazakhstan alone its estimated 1 million people starved during the Kruschev years. In a fertile, green country thats NUTS.

05-14-2005, 08:49 PM
Jihna, the problem is, Soviet politics, policies, and the condition of countries under their sphere of influence is a lot more complicated than one would believe.

Honestly, these countries under the Soviet regime where a million times better than they are now. While they were poor under the Soviet Union, they are not horrific places to live now. At least under the Soviet Union they had the basics like elecricity, running water, and most importantly, goods being shipped to them from the Soviet Union. They lost all of this as well as their Soviet funding.

So, compared to what they are now, they were in a utopia under the Soviet Union. They really pissed away their best chance of advancing themselves.

- Arkans

Back
05-14-2005, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Arkans
So, compared to what they are now, they were in a utopia under the Soviet Union. They really pissed away their best chance of advancing themselves.

- Arkans

By your definition of utopia. Obviously the people have a different idea of what utopia is for themselves. It still does not justify the slaughter (genocide if its killing women and children) of protesters.

05-14-2005, 09:32 PM
Of course it doesn't, but they made the bed they are lying in now. They had funding, supplies from the Soviet Union, stability, and relative safety. They decided to piss it all away and now have this hell hole of a state.

- Arkans

Back
05-14-2005, 09:44 PM
Recent developments (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005051420220001125271&dt=20050514202 200&w=APO&coview=).


The U.S.-allied Uzbek leader blamed the fighting on Islamic extremists. During a news conference in the capital, Tashkent, he said 10 government troops and ``many more'' militants died in the fighting Friday. At least 100 people were wounded, Karimov said without specifying who started the shooting.


The White House on Saturday declined to comment, although press secretary Scott McClellan on Friday urged both the government and demonstrators to ``exercise restraint.''

Restraint, like we did with Iraq.

[Edited on 5-15-2005 by Backlash]

4a6c1
05-15-2005, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Arkans
Honestly, these countries under the Soviet regime where a million times better than they are now.


As far as Uzbekistan goes, I'm not saying the system of government they have in place is perfect. Nor for that matter would I even reach enough to say it works at all. But there have been small miracles that dont involve the government but completely support my point. These are things that we cant appreciate in the West because frankly, its not something we know how to imagine.

Nationality in place of "religion" robbed these people of they're identity, culture and history for years. International archaeological authorities have been coming together for some time now to give these small countries back what they lost during the Soviet years. And now they have museums. And festivals. And birthdays. They have the freedom to have a culture again.

Even in knowing only this tidbit, I think that we can safely assume it will take at least 50 years for any country to begin to recover from being the agricultural slave to such a large oppressive regime.

I think the fact that they have roads is impressive. And the fact that they have baseball, fast food, a monetary system that works, lingirie stores, pottery exportation, a tourist authority. The most amazing thing to me though is how quickly these people have taken back who they are.

Many people believe that the one great huge legacy the Soviet regime left historians to learn by was its incredibly powerful propaganda campaign. If your believing that any culture/country/group of people was better under such oppressive conditions I'm inclined to agree that yes, that statement is certainly true.

:-P

05-15-2005, 10:48 AM
Okay, this post is going to lose a few people due to the fact that it's basically going to be a condensed lesson about the Soviet Union and life there. You've been warned!

Now, while the average Soviet citizen did not have much as the average Western citizen we need to understand a few major and important points.

1. Soviet services were heads and shoulders ABOVE anything provided in the West. Take childcare as just one small example. You'd be hardpressed to find any system (free of charge or other) that was better in a Western nation.

2. Excluding churches (except in Poland) and pre-Soviet nationalistic memorials the Soviet Union spent massive amounts of money, time, and effort to improve the look, safety, and infrastructure of cities.

3. Under the Soviet Union you had rights that the government would do its damnedest to preserve. The right to work, the right to healthcare, the right to shelter, the right to education, and the right to food were huge tenants of Soviet society.

Now, why did things go wrong and when. Well, generally, Soviet society functioned quite well and people led decent, if not poorer lives, there than out in the West. The main problems arose (the bread lines, empty supermarkets, lack of resources) when the embargo was declared against the Eastern Bloc. Before this, there was actually a tolerable way of life.

Now, of course, there were somethings that were unheard of in the Soviet Union that were commonplace in America (the one example I'll make is rarely a luxury enjoyed by many Western European Nations too!), the biggest of these was owning a home. Appartments were small, cheap, ugly, and just "bleh" in general, but it was doable.

Now, what is the point of this all? Well, the Soviet Union was a huge sprawling morass of a nation. It had (and the Russian Federation now has!) the resources to outpace the United States pleanty of times over and it did allocate these resources (though inefficiently) to these small nations out in the middle of nowhere, with no real resources. Think about it, they had the backing from this powerful Imperialist nation to recieve all I stated above, they were afterall, Soviet citizens.

Now, was life perfect? Of course not. The Soviet Union did terrible harm on these satellite nations that I won't get into now, but one needs to remember that life in the Soviet Union was a lot different than what we are used to being taught in schools now.

- Arkans

Latrinsorm
05-15-2005, 04:35 PM
The Soviet Union wasn't really a nation, was it? I thought nation was a cultural designation more than a political one.

05-15-2005, 06:23 PM
These are Kent State deaths multiplied by two-hundred.

I'm sure that the Uzbek government is glad that their population is so oblivious to how certain other countries might react to the situation.

05-15-2005, 08:14 PM
It operated in such a way that it really was just one nation, just united by a belief.

- Arkans

4a6c1
05-16-2005, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by Arkans
Okay, this post is going... to be a condensed lesson about the Soviet Union and life there. You've been warned!

- Arkans

Its obvious to me that the attributes you find in the memory of the Soviet republic are mostly technical, so I will address those issues first.

In theory, Soviet services were very much superior to anything ever known before. Just as, in theory, communism is a good idea that could work for everyone. The variable and eventual flaw in both the Soviet services and communism was and always will be the human emotions that become involved. One particular emotion, greed, became involved when it was decided that to save money for the state, only a certain amount of doctors could be on call at any given time and in some cases those doctors would have to come out of they're own pockets to buy the up-to-date equipment they needed to treat people. Once again, the theory of Soviet services was a wonderful one. But eventually the dollars that were ment to pay for the doctors seemed prettier in the pockets of the executives.

Its interesting you bring up the merits of the Soviet housing program.

For the most part, the only accurate account of life in the Soviet Republic comes from pamphlets that were collected and saved by travel writers who smuggled them out of the country. The dissidents who were brave enough to stay in Russia and write such opinions arent usually alive today as most of them went missing come 1989 or so. Still, from they're writings it is known that it was common for 4 or more families to live in a single 2 bedroom flat together. These days those same housing blocks are for the most part condemed, some of them thought to have lost they're electricity and plumbing around ohhh, 1940 or so. Most of them never even had heat - in one of the coldest populated countries in the world. I dont just describe this as, 'bleh' and certainly not doable.

In theory, communism could work. And in theory so could Soviet services. The human flaw variable kicks in though and we realize that with emotions involved this system could (and did) become one of the most savage systems of government ever (EVAR).

And there were people starving in bread lines before the Embargo you dork.....

When you speak to someone who actually lived in the Soviet Republic they're whole life its heartbreakingly familiar. I can relate it to talking to a prisoner who wants back into the prison because they arent sure what to do with freedom. A whole country of people. Without culture. And now they are being forced to define who they are.

This is why I'm not suprised the Uzbekhstan government is failing. And why I'm impressed anything at all is working for them.

Anyways. WE HIJACKED THE UZBEK THREAD ARKANS. QUIT TALKING ABOUT THE SOVIETS. Back to u2u's with your history jabber.

~R