Posted on 10/07/2004 8:39:17 PM PDT by Destro
CENTRAL ASIA: Unhappy and Unsupported Terrorists
October 7, 2004: Russia is increasing the number of troops stationed at a Kyrgyzstan air force base, from a few hundred, to over a thousand. The Russian troops are there because of the Collective Security Treaty Organization that Russia and Kyrgyzstan belong to. But it is also seen as a way for Russia to reinforce the rule of the dictatorship running Kyrgyzstan.
October 1, 2004: Uzbekistan continues to search, with little success, for Hizb-ut-Tahrir members. The Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which has offices in Europe, is an Islamic radical organization that denies any association with al Qaeda. But Uzbekistan insists that captured terrorists admitted that they received training in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The governments of Central Asia are dictatorships, with strong secret police and intelligence organizations. The Islamic radicals are there, but have not been able to get much traction because, with the exception of some Islamic radical groups in Pakistan, there is no external source of support. There's not a lot of support inside the country either, even though a majority of the population is unhappy with the government.
September 23, 2004: Uzbekistan has arrested and tried over fifty people for complicity in the March and April terrorist attacks.
July 30, 2004: Terrorists attacked the U.S. and Israeli embassies in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Seven people were killed, including three attackers.
April 3, 2004: The Russian FSB (federal security agency) has sent investigators and technicians to assist in the counter-terrorism operations in Uzbekistan. There, the death toll in the last six days stands at 33 terrorists (seven of them women), ten policemen and four civilians. Police arrested 19 terrorism suspects and seized 55 suicide bomber belts, 72 ammonium nitrate bombs, and more than two tons of chemicals for making bombs. Also seized were seven AK-47s, 11 pistols and two hand grenades. The government says that most of the terrorists are foreigners, but Uzbek pro-democracy groups say the government is using the terrorist attacks as an excuse to round up anyone opposed to the current dictatorship.
Afghanistan, alarmed at the outbreak of terrorist violence, has closed its border crossings into Uzbekistan. Meanwhile, across the border in Pakistan, Tahir Yuldash (head of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan) is still on the loose with several hundred heavily armed followers. The chances of Yuldash getting back to Uzbekistan with his men are slim, but not impossible. In any event, the government claims that some of the terrorists participating in the recent attacks had spent time in Pakistani al Qaeda camps.
March 31, 2004: Uzbekistan's crackdown against suspected Islamic militants is being described as a new flank in the "war on terror". The death toll from incidents in Tashkent and Bukhara has risen to 42 since the night of March 28, with at least 22 killed in a third day of violence. State-run TV that 20 terrorists and three police were killed in the confrontations beginning around 7:20 AM. Police stopped a small car and two terrorists jumped out, detonating explosive-laden belts that killed themselves and three police, while wounding five more officers.
Nearby, a woman blew herself up after refusing to heed police orders to stop approaching a bus. Three women who had been in a car with that bomber fled to a nearby apartment building near the official residence of President Islam Karimov in the capital, Tashkent. During the five-hour standoff with the police, 11 suspected male and five female terrorists were killed.
A witness told the Associated Press that five suspects escaped and that the women from the car wearing veils revealing only their eyes (rare in secular Uzbekistan) were speaking a different Central Asian language. This merely adds to the mystery of which group is behind the recent violence.
While President Karimov has pointed the finger at Hizb-ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation, a group that calls for the creation of a Muslim caliphate), another possibility is the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) The IMU, already linked to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, is based in the eastern Fergana valley straddling the Kyrgyzstan border. The IMU was blamed for a failed bomb attack on President Karimov that killed at least 16 people. The United States offered to assist Uzbekistan in its investigations. - Adam Geibel
March 30, 2004: Two more bombs went off in Uzbekistan, and there was at least one shoot out between police and terrorists in the capital. Police say they arrested five suspects in yesterdays bombings. Uzbekistan, like the other Central Asian nations is a police state (although not a very efficient one), and this makes it easier for Islamic militant groups to recruit among young Moslem men. After decades of Russian communist rule, socialism is no longer an option and democracy takes a lot longer to develop than Islamic revolution. Besides, Islam is already in the region, while democracy has never made an appearance. If Afghanistan gets a decent democracy going, that may change. But for now, Islamic radicalism is the way to go if you're feeling reform minded or revolutionary.
March 29, 2004: A series of terrorist incidents in Uzbekistan over the last 24 hours left 19 people dead and at least 26 wounded. There were two bombings, two attacks on police officers and an explosion that killed nine terrorists in a building where bombs were being assembled. The authorities captured four survivors (as well as a ton of saltpeter/aluminum powder expedient explosives).
However, other terrorists are believed still at large and may be attempting additional attacks. Later in the day, the Uzbek president blamed the Hizb ut-Tahrir group and Wahhabis terrorists and pointed out that the perpetrators had been preparing for the "terrorist acts" for at least six months. Hizb-ut-Tahrir operates openly in London and denied responsibility. If Hizb-ut-Tahrir is positively linked to these attacks, it would be the first time the group was directly involved in a terrorist attack.
The US embassy in Tashkent closed its downtown annex and suspended visa operations for the remainder of the day. The embassy also advised US citizens in the country to be on "the highest alert", since extremists may be plotting more terrorist attacks. Hundreds of Americans troops are stationed at an Uzbek air base in the southern town of Khanabad, ever since the base became a key staging point in 2001 for American operations in Afghanistan.
During a February visit, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said the United States was considering a future arrangement that would make Uzbek bases available to U.S. forces during a crisis but that America has no plans to establish a permanent presence in Uzbekistan. Both countries signed a strategic partnership agreement in 2002.
The attacks were the worst in Uzbekistan since 1999, when a series of nearly simultaneous bombings in Tashkent killed 19 and wounded over 100. Those attacks were blamed on the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which is based in Afghanistan and believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda.
Tahir Yuldash, the 10th most senior member of the al-Qaida terror network, is from Uzbekistan. During the fighting in Pakistan's northwestern tribal zone South Waziristan last week, Yuldash was wounded but managed to escape with his fighters. - Adam Geibel
dictatorship running Kyrgyzstan
The governments of Central Asia are dictatorships,
...but Uzbek pro-democracy groups say the government is using the terrorist attacks as an excuse to round up anyone opposed to the current dictatorship.
Clearly your 'stans' are not democracies, therefore they are invalid to use as examples of democracy in Central Asia. Your source article also provides POSITIVE comments regarding the desire of the peoples to have a greater say in their government in a democratic manner. I am suprised you didn't read your source article better.
Turkey and Indonesia are prime examples of the potential that moslem democracies can have. They are not perfect and have some terrorist organizations imbedded, they are taking steps to stop them.
Iraq shows that democracy may not prevent radical Islamisim.
I agree, but also see it as the first step in the anti-jihad to rid humanity of the most violent strain of the cancer of Islam.
Nobody kills Muslims better than the Koranimals themselves, and this keeps the Islamic Ummah undivided, and preoccupied fighting themselves.
An Islamic civil war (a violent hate-filled ideology like Islam will not do this peacefully) is needed if:
1. You think Islam is ever capable of going thru a "reformation" or enlightenment, and being a benign, "peaceful religion" at last.(I personally do not)
OR:
2. You realize it's better to keep the Islamic Umah divided and pick them off one at a time. Divide and conquer, using their internal divisions to our advantage and use them to fight each other. (I do.)
:o)
"Iraq shows that democracy may not prevent radical Islamisim."
I have an idea-- why not wait until Iraq actually HAS a democracy for awhile before writing them off?
I am still waiting for a democratic Arab and or Muslim country to appear.
When people VOTE to elect their leadership it is a form of democracy. Indonesia just replaced Megawatti (hold over from the previous dictator) (infact she was voted out) with some one else. Never said they were perfect but they are light years better than sharia law in an islamic nation. And the military in Turkey serves to keep the radical islamists at check against the secular government.
On your second point, democracy is just starting to take hold in Iraq, therefore your strawman is also invalid. The interium, independent government is only 4 months old. Nor is democracy an instant solution, but I doubt that you have a better solution. Iraq shows the potential democracy has in keeping radical islam in check.
Make that: "Nobody kills Muslims better than the Koranimals themselves, and this keeps the Islamic Ummah divided, and preoccupied fighting themselves."
And certainly we wish democracy, and liberty, for all peoples. But if free and fair elections could not defeat, contain, or long deter, Shamil Basayev in Chechnya, is it realistic to assume they will defeat, contain or long deter, terrorists elsewhere?
"is it realistic to assume they will defeat, contain or long deter, terrorists elsewhere?"
Sounds like you're really down on democracy. Give autocracy a chance?
No more so than our Founding Fathers were
PS: Hitler was democratically elected.
So unless our leaders, the West, Israel, Russia, and all the other victims of Islamic terror decide to unite in an anti-Jihad alliance along the lines of the old NATO and pull the gloves off to finally confront the Islamofascists and deal with them on a grand scale, I say lets help move the pieces into place and let the Islamic civil war begin. :o)
But hey... I'm not very sure of where you're coming from, but if you have a better option than leading the followers of the pedophile to Democracy, even after knowing a little of the Machiavellian agenda I would like to have instore for them, I for one would like to hear about it sometime.
The Islalmic "reformation" has already taken place and the Wahabbis have won....
No more so than our Founding Fathers were
As you know we have a republic, with our representatives democratically elected. If you wish to go back to the founding fathers concept of having the representatives elected by an elite (property holders), then you have stepped right into our current cultural division.
The Democrats want an intelligensia elite (media, Hollywood, artists, professors, teachers, etc.) to control the ignorant electorate and insure power for their elite.
The Republicans supposedly want a business/corporate/propertied elite or a religious elite (depending on what faction of the culture is talking) to hold the reins of power.
In Turkey many people are grateful that the military prevents a religious elite from ruling unchecked. May be also true in Indonesia.
As many who are currently voting in Republican primaries want there to be a religious test for candidates, that seems to me the same as advocating that a religious elite should control the reins of power.
That these questions are being fought out all over the globe only indicates to me that human beings have the same flaws no matter where they are born.
Good point on Algeria.
I don't for America. But we have had 2 centuries plus, plus plus - to evolve to what we have now.
Yet, I see pluralistic universal sufferage being pushed on Arab nations that have had no political evolution. See I am talking about democracy abroad not in America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.