Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, May 20, 2005

Uzbekistan: Eyewitness reports

Information not available on the wires.

Death count is far higher than government stating. Government is using around 200; confirmed at this point are above 310; others report seeing at least 500 bodies in the morgue; estimates suggest the number of dead could be higher than 1,000.

Women and children were among the dead and dying.

Fatal stabbings in the morgue

Eyewitnesses report civilians were still alive, and taken to the morgues. Civilians inside the morgues were killed.

Government wanted to clean up the mess quickly. The government's goal was to clean up the streets, get the bodies off the streets.

When the [not clear in morgue personnel or soldiers] found that people were still alive in the morgue, they were killed.

Some had their stomachs cut open with knives in the morgue to kill them.

Counter-attacks in preliminary planning stages

The citizens have turned noticeably angry and outraged over the government atrocities. The citizens know full well what happened, but are fearful of openly discussing that they know:

  • Casualty-death-numbers are much higher than the government is stating;
  • Women and children were targeted indiscriminately;
  • Official government-story is fiction [about death count, targeting civilians]; and
  • Live [ still living ] citizens were murdered in the morgues.

    Anti-government forces are waiting for revenge. Now is too soon. This is the calm before the storm and counter-strikes by anti-government militia.

    Uzbekistan [ Uzbekestan ]

    Other links

    Streets deserted.

    Turkish Weekly [TW, News Central Asia, 16 May 2005]asks good questions:

    "The United States and its allies need to pause now and decide"

  • TW: Are they waging a war against Islam or against terrorism?

    Constant: Excellent question. It appears as though the US is actually waging war with anyone that dares disagrees with it. The violence is not only against Muslims in Iraq, but also against civilians in American streets.

    The US Government fabricates evidence to justify detaining people both within America and in detention camps; their law enforcement fabricates video evidence and lies in court to secure detentions.

    Also, the American FBI [national state police] will randomly stop people without any probable cause and interrogate them. It appears the US is merely using the 9-11 attacks as an excuse to bully anyone, even those in the media who talk about the abuse committed in Abu Ghraib. The US is not effectively waging a war for freedom in Iraq; rather the US ha insufficient manpower in the face of a more emboldened local insurgency.

    The US is using the "war on terror" as an excuse to destroy the constitution, undermine civil liberties at home, and use military force without regard to the laws of war in re prisoners and open combat. I see little difference between what George Bush is doing and what Adolph Hitler did in the 1930s. End Commend

  • TW: If the free and fair elections in any country lead to a parliament that may have Islamic leanings, should it be considered a threat to the American interests?

    My comment: Recall the similar issue in Iraq: What if a democratic Iraq votes for government officials/system that is anti-US; will the US use violence, intimidation, and surveillance as a check on those they liberated? Yes, see Negoponte.End Commend

  • TW: If a government comes in power in the Central Asian region that allows free access to mosques and does not crack down on practicing Muslims, should such a government be considered a security risk for the United States and its allies?

    Constant: Unfortunately, the US doesn't support freedom and democracy when the fruits of that free decision is contrary to the United States arbitrary interests. The United States will reserve the right to use military force to fight anyone it disagrees with, even if those actions violate the laws of war; but then ask the world to feel sorry for it when American enemies reciprocate.

    What 'should' the United States do: Practice what it preaches; and let other people's make the same choices that Americans once were allowed to make.

    At the same time, if the Americans are going to use violence and commit war crimes, then when their law enforcement is drafted into the Army, they should not cry when the enemy reciprocates and commits torture. Reciprocation is permissible under the laws of war; and under the principle of levee en masse a defending-militia that is surprised need not have uniforms.

    Unfortunately, the Americans at home have decided to put American mosques under close surveillance. Civilians who attend mosques are followed and questioned. The FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) refuses to cooperate with oversight and audits; the ACLU is suing the FBI-JTTF to get records on surveillance of American civilians who have committed no crimes.

    It is unfortunate that the United States is now doing exactly what AlQueda discussed as the pretext for attacking on 9-11: Arrogant abuse of power, no respect for other views, and complete disregard for human rights. Senator Kennedy said it well: That the US, by invading Iraq, may precipitate the very violence the US is hoping to combat. In 2005, Senate Kennedy would be considered a prophet for correctly seeing the American arrogance around the globe is merely fueling greater contempt both at home and abroad for the American government, military, and "democracy." End Comment

  • TW: Is Islam an inherently violent and anti-democratic religion? To answer this question, one would need to find whether there is only one acceptable model of democracy for all nations?

    Constant: No, Islam is no inherently violent. What is violent are the methods used by some to advance their agendas.

    It is another issue whether being "pro-muslim" is "anti-democratic." It could be in reality, or it could be a perception. In the end, pro-mulims do not have to be anti-democratic; just as "pro-democracies" do not have to be anti-Muslim.

    Again, just because a nation is "pro-democracy" in their slogans and rhetoric doesn't mean that they're democratic in their practices.

    If the Muslim faith was truly "incapble of peace," then we would have to question why the Americans would seriously accept the peace overtures from Libya. If the Muslim faith was inherently violent, why is the US agreeing to accept Libya's promise to not produce WMD?

    If the Muslim fath was turly "incapable of peace", then we would have to ask why the United States would "help those who are not peaceful" as they have done in Indonesia.

    If Mustims were incapable of distinguisinb between "pro muslim" and "anti-democracy," the US needs to explain why, despite this illusory problem, the US is the west assisting those who are victims of the Tsunami. If Mulstims were truly against the United States, then the US would have no hope of having their assisatnce accepted, even in a time of dire need.

    As far as whether democarcy can be imposed from without, or must come from within: Russia's Putin has spoken out saying that Democracy cannot be imposed, it has to come from within the soul of the people, as was the American Revolution.End Commend

  • TW: Where do the American interests lie - in propping up repressive and unpopular regimes or in letting people decide their own affairs?

    Constant: America's interest like in putting America first. It will lie to create the illusion that it cares, when it doesn't. The US will support anyone if that person can do something to advance America's interests. The US pays little attention to the long-term consequences of supporting people who are violent, abusive. Bolton is a fine example of arrogance in power.

    American will say whatever sounds good. The State Department crafts talking points that their personnel read on their air. You can tell that they are reading the words. They sometimes get very emotional and start to say words before they realize what they're actually saying. If they were truly "thinking off the top fo their head," they would rephrase their thought, not restate the same word that they misprouncounced from the paper they are reading.

    American talks about democracy, but doesn't practce it. Look at the RNC-supported attacks on their own offices; look at how law enforcement lies in court; take a look at how prosecutors manufacture evidence to convict the innocent; look at the situations where people are getting harassed and threatened with death, but the prosecutors refuse to hold anyone accountable.

    America puts its own interests first; if it means supporting a dictatorship in one regions so that the US can have bases to launch strikes into Afghanistan, it will do so.

    However, the issue becomes to what extent is the US merely sewing more seeds for a blowback, as it did in Afghanistan in supporting the Taliban against the Russians then doing nothing about the abuse and corruption until 9-11. What we've seen in Uzbekestan could very well happen in the United States.

    America is a morally flawed country. It's people yell loudly because their logic, reality, and facts do not, on their own, justify popular support. America relies on myth and fables to exert control. It uses force but then pretends it is democracy.

    America is not a democracy. It is a fascist state. One that pretends to be a Republic, but will wage wars where they are illegal. Why do they do this? They do it because they can; and they do it because no one is bold enough to stop them.

    A free citizenry, as we have seen in Uzbekestan, may very well assert itself. It will be interesting to see where America turns should the domestic population exericse their rights. America's aresental is overeas in Iraq. But this would not prevent the American military from being put to use on America's streets, as it was with Operation Falcon.End Comment