Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Uzbekistan update
An update on the events in eastern Uzbekistan
Question: what constitutes a terrorist these days? It seems that almost everybody can be deemed a terrorist as long as they are doing something out of line with their government. Condi Rice said that the Uzbek government has a right to fight terrorism, in response to the recent clashes there. How the hell can she label these recent incidents as a fight against terrorism when no one still knows what the hell happened? Why can't our govt say something akin to what the British said which was basically, Karimov (Uzbek president), cut your shit and give some rights back to your people. Since 9/11, this catch phrase "war on terror" has infiltrated everything and that is the label our govt seems to give to anything that is disorderly.
Yeah, we tell them allright. If you don't act better, you'll only get $XX million instead of $xx million. Big threat.
How about some perspective. Remember the Founding Fathers? They sure as hell would have been branded as terrorists. Overthrowing their govt by force? Bastards! If only there had been someone to assist the British (more effectively) in squelching that uprising!
Maybe some of these people are treated like garbage and are trying to do improve their situation. If that earns them the label of terrorist, I can't say that I like that. Especially if that is the only reason needed for a govt to take action against 'justifiably' (i.e.-China and their minorities).
I suppose my patience has worn thin on hearing "war on terror" so often. Yes, there are bad men out there that would prefer it if the US didn't exist. Is going to war against them truly preventative? Or a solution? Maybe it's merely a bloody band-aid that may slow the flow in the short run. Perhaps a better alternative would be to take a look at where all the anti-US sentiment comes from and try change that?
For the Christians out there (and the rest, of course. This site is truly open to all beliefs), let the Bible guide: you can give a man food for a day (band-aid) or teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime (long-term solution). Which is a more effective course of action?
Question: what constitutes a terrorist these days? It seems that almost everybody can be deemed a terrorist as long as they are doing something out of line with their government. Condi Rice said that the Uzbek government has a right to fight terrorism, in response to the recent clashes there. How the hell can she label these recent incidents as a fight against terrorism when no one still knows what the hell happened? Why can't our govt say something akin to what the British said which was basically, Karimov (Uzbek president), cut your shit and give some rights back to your people. Since 9/11, this catch phrase "war on terror" has infiltrated everything and that is the label our govt seems to give to anything that is disorderly.
"We would hope that the government of Uzbekistan would be very open in understanding what has happened there," Rice told reporters.
"(The United States has) a record of going to the Karimov government and telling them in no uncertain terms that it is time to open up their political system and to reform."
-Condi RiceYeah, we tell them allright. If you don't act better, you'll only get $XX million instead of $xx million. Big threat.
How about some perspective. Remember the Founding Fathers? They sure as hell would have been branded as terrorists. Overthrowing their govt by force? Bastards! If only there had been someone to assist the British (more effectively) in squelching that uprising!
Maybe some of these people are treated like garbage and are trying to do improve their situation. If that earns them the label of terrorist, I can't say that I like that. Especially if that is the only reason needed for a govt to take action against 'justifiably' (i.e.-China and their minorities).
I suppose my patience has worn thin on hearing "war on terror" so often. Yes, there are bad men out there that would prefer it if the US didn't exist. Is going to war against them truly preventative? Or a solution? Maybe it's merely a bloody band-aid that may slow the flow in the short run. Perhaps a better alternative would be to take a look at where all the anti-US sentiment comes from and try change that?
For the Christians out there (and the rest, of course. This site is truly open to all beliefs), let the Bible guide: you can give a man food for a day (band-aid) or teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime (long-term solution). Which is a more effective course of action?
Comments:
Post a Comment
