President Bush backs a dictator who boils his victims to death

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: GrGr

burnedout, you didn't shoot any holes in the story. You asked questions but you did not present any new facts that disprove the facts presented in the article.

Facts are:

No, sorry, I shot plenty of holes in your story. Now, for a few more:

1. "The Taliban have now been overthrown, but the US has no intention of moving out." OK. If the Taliban have been "overthrown" as this commentary from your beloved Retardian professes, then why were the following stories printed less than 90 days earlier:

Guardian: Unfinished Business - October 7

"The Taliban/al-Qaida resurgence in the south, financed in part by rising heroin production and backed by Islamist zealots in Pakistan's tribal areas, is ominous."

Hmmmm, according to the Retardian, the Taliban still exists. Contradictory? Nah.....

Guardian: US bombs base of resurgent Taliban - August 26

Guardian: Afghan aid workers attacked - August 19

Guardian: 22 die in Taliban attack on police station - August 18

What's wrong with this picture? Why are red flags going up all over this "blame America first" diatribe? No comment, you say? But wait, there is more.

2. "Indeed, the US state department now plays a major role in excusing his crimes. In May, for example, it announced that Uzbekistan had made "substantial and continuing progress" in improving its human rights record. The progress? "Average sentencing" for members of peaceful religious organisations is now just "7-12 years", while two years ago they were "usually sentenced to 12-19 years"."

So the U.S. State Dept. now plays a "major role" in excusing Karimov's crimes by commenting on reduced sentencing. Hmmmm. Then why doesn't the author also mention that Uzbekistan now has a human rights group?

Uzbekistan gets human rights group - BBC

Why doesn't the author, Mr. Moibot, allude to anything about U.S. criticism in regards to "free-and-fair" presidential elections in Uzbekistan?

US praises Uzbekistan but criticises poll - BBC

Why hasn't the author mentioned the FACT that Uzbekistan reduced the number of crimes punishable by death penalty. Oh, and by the way, this measure was enacted BEFORE 9/11. Have you any clue at all why the author didn't mention this fact?

Uzbekistan to reduce death penalty - BBC

I smell a rat. Do you smell a rat? Who else smells a rat?

3. If the Uzbek regime is so bad then why is the University of Westminster assisting with the opening of a university in Uzbekistan?

Westminster opens Tashkent university - BBC

Yessir. Drastic measures indeed by an academic entity in response to such a "brutal" regime, don't ya think?

4. Ah, now how could Mr. Moibot forget about the "Koran reciting competition" held in Uzbekistan during January of 2001. Shame on him.

Koran reciting competition in Uzbekistan - BBC

Yep, sounds to me like total religious persecution.

5. The United States increased military aid to Uzbekistan in September of 2000. Please explain why your title is so misleading. A Bush plot, you say? Hardly. Willie was in office at the time.

US increases military aid to Uzbekistan - BBC

So what else of any value have to add about your beloved Retardian commentary?

 

[dpm]

Again, burnedout? Its strange, I've noticed a couple of your posts in other threads, and they appear reasonable, but it seems the mere mention of the Guardian turns you into 'rabid attack dog mode'.

Again, you are pretty selective in what you respond to here (but I must admit, you are pretty broad in what you ignore 😉 ).
You say that you shot the article full of holes? In that case I'd feel pretty safe, say, in a boat you'd "shot plenty of holes" in!

To respond;

1) Previously in this thread I've accused you of not being able to read. Perhaps thats too harsh. Perhaps you can read, but you aren't sure of the longer words - like "overthrown". From the Collins English Dictionary "Overthrow: to effect the downfall or destruction of (a ruler, institution, etc.), esp. by force". Perhaps now you know what the word means, you will agree with the Guardian that "<B>The Taliban have now been overthrown</B>, but the US has no intention of moving out." (emphasis yours).

2),3),4). Let me paraphrase: you are saying that things are getting better, but the author of the article makes no mention of that. Perhaps this comes down to how you interpret the following sentance: "The progress? "Average sentencing" for members of peaceful religious organisations is now just "7-12 years", while two years ago they were "usually sentenced to 12-19 years"."

That sentance acknowledges that *slight* progress has been made, but makes the point, strongly, that the progress is very slight indeed compared to the repression and brutality still extant in the country.
In essence, we are still pulling our punches in terms of criticism, while propping up the leadership through massive loans. While I am very much in favour of using the carrott as well as the stick in international diplomacy, I'm not sure that the large donations to the police and military, that are so much the instrument of repression in this country, is a wise part of the aid package.

5) Finally I agree with you on something in this thread! However, here you have a problem with the author of this thread, not the author of the article. The author of the article makes no Mention of George W, but instead targets both the recent US governments (hence the ". Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers..."). However, the real target of this author's ire is Tony Blair. With, I might add, some justification. While campaigning, and when he came into power, he massively trumpeted his new "ethical foreign policy". This is not the only time he has fallen short of his own statements.

So, I still don't see where you've shot the article full of holes. I don't see you admitting to any of the mistakes you made earlier in this thread, though, so I'm not expecting you to admit to this either!

 

[roboninja]

Not surprising. The US put Saddam in power, and trained Bin Laden. What other proof do you need about their "foreign policy"?