The plot thickens..
Mary Madigan
Via LGF: According to an Indian security analyst, the Islamist rioting in Afghanistan is being deliberately incited by well-organized agents of the Hizb ut-Tahrir terror gang. They realized that Newsweek "Quran desecration" story was a propaganda windfall:
In Newsweek's May 9 edition, a brief item carried a single sentence saying that a U.S. military investigation had found that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, where Islamist terror suspects are being held, had flushed a Koran down a toilet.Why, what a coincidence! Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami has been involved in the recent violence in Uzbekistan:A populist politician in Pakistan called a press conference to draw attention to the claim, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia issued strongly worded statements, and protests erupted in the Afghan city of Jalalabad and spread..
..Myers said at the Pentagon briefing Thursday that according to U.S. commanders in Afghanistan, the Jalalabad protests had more to do with the political situation on the ground than anger about the report.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a U.S. ally, has also suggested that foreign elements and "enemies of peace" were responsible for the violent rioting...
..South Asian political and security analyst Bahukutumbi Raman said the protests in Afghanistan were not spontaneous.
"They had been well-prepared, and were well-organized and well-orchestrated. Groups of students went from town to town instigating the local students to take to the streets."
Raman, who is director of the Institute For Topical Studies in the Indian city of Chennai, also reported that many members of the police and army appeared to have sympathized with the protestors.
He cited "reliable Afghan sources" as saying the demonstrations had been organized by a growing global movement called Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami.
The rally in Andizhan, Uzbekistan's fourth-largest city, began after demonstrations over the trial of 23 local businessmen boiled over. Prosecutors had accused the men of belonging to the outlawed Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation) but their supporters say the charges are fabricated, and Hizb ut-Tahrir denies any link to the violence.According to this report, Hizb ut-Tahrir is never "overtly" violent
Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation) a radical Islamic political movement that seeks 'implementation of pure Islamic doctrine' and the creation of an Islamic caliphate in Central Asia. The group's aim is to resume the Islamic way of life and to convey the Islamic da’wah to the world. The ultimate goal of this secretive sectarian group is to unite the entire ummah, or Islamic world community, into a single caliphate. The aim is to bring the Muslims back to living an Islamic way of life in 'Dar al-Islam' [the land where the rules of Islam are being implemented, as opposed to the non-Islamic world] and in an Islamic society such that all life's affairs in society are administered according to the Shariah rules...Hizb ut-Tahrir calls their "nonviolent" demand for a genoicidal, apartheid Caliphate based on Shariah law "democracy"...It is active all over the world. Hizb ut-Tahrir now has its main base in Western Europe, but it has large followings in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan, as well as in China's traditionally Muslim Xinjiang Province...
Unlike similar Islamic groups, the radical Sunni Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir recruits new members irrespective of differences among the various tendencies within Islam. Unlike more traditional Islamic parties, it is supranational and refuses to be involved in local politics. Therefore, it is impossible for regional leaders to co-opt the group, as happened with the former Islamic opposition in Tajikistan. Hizb ut-Tahrir is not a political party in the sense that it does not want to participate in national politics. It does not want to go for elections. It does not want to be part of any coalition government.
The group has never been overtly involved in any violent actions, and Hizb ut-Tahrir has long claimed it wants to achieve its objectives through nonviolent means.
Like our moderate, non-overt nonviolent allies, the Saudis, Hizb ut-Tahrir also likes to blame the Jews for everything.
The Saudi government has published this defense of Hizb ut-Tahrir in their English-language publication, Arab News.
Which brings up another amazing coincidence - Hizb-ut-Tahrir was formed in Saudi Arabia as a pan-Islamic movement in the 1950s. In their own words:
At that time we had a united plan with the Wahabbi movement, but we soon split because Hizb-ut-Tahrir wanted to bring about sharia {Islamic religious law} in a peaceful manner while the Wahabbis were extremists who wanted guerrilla war. Hizb-ut-Tahrir went underground during Soviet times and many members were in Soviet prisons. But today we have tens of thousands of members across Central Asia. We want to make a caliphate {Islamic state} which will reunite all the Central Asian states. Hizb-ut-Tahrir wants a peaceful jihad, but ultimately there will be war because repression by the Central Asian states is so strong.Hizb-ut-Tahrir broke with the Saudi Wahhabis because our allies were extremists who wanted guerrilla war.
Hizb ut-Tahrir isn't as violent as Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda paramilitaries, but they share the same goals, a worldwide Islamic state under Shariah law.
Of course, this doesn't mean that we should continue to support Uzbekistan's burtal authoritarian ruler, Karimov.
It does mean that we shouldn't allow Hizb ut-Tahrir to install a Taliban/Saudi style theocracy. We're already allied with one non-overt terror-supporting Islamist state. We really don't need more friends like these.
Only one? The KSA is just the epicenter.
Not like they planned that or anything. Funny coincidence that this and the problems in Afghanistan happened at the same time. More of the Arab way of War.
Its a shame that no one is willing to stand up to the people who are waging war against us.
My fundamental problem here is that, by any objective measure, the states of Central Asia are among the least free in the world, and their governments among the most evil. Uzbekistan is still governed by the same dictator who governed it in the late Soviet period, political activity is generally not tolerated, and the government actively foments hostility between ethnic groups. Turkmenistan suffers under a bizarre political-religious government in which the writings of the president-for-life (another Soviet-era holdover) are treated as the sole legitimate source of spiritual guidance, and in which all hospitals outside of the capital have been ordered closed by presidential decree.
The most rational course of action for anyone who loves freedom in either country is to join with whatever allies they can in order to overthrow their governments. Even if that means making common cause with religious fanatics who want to impose a theocratic dictatorship. There's a chance that those people will fail; there is very little chance that the Uzbek or Turkmen governments will somehow be induced to respect political freedom.
Honestly, if you lived in either of these countries, what would you do?
That's the most absurd "reasoning" I've ever heard. Fighting fascism by uniting with fascists is reasonable? I don't think you understand the concept of loving freedom.
The Iranian leftists tried your idea back in 1979. It didn't work out for them.
Some people learn from their mistakes, some don't. You can't fight fascism with fascism. If America followed your extreme-realpolitik line of reasoning, we would fight for our definition of freedom by fighting alongside every non-Islamic fascist strongman we could find. Following your line of reasoning, we would have supported Milosevic. We would send our military forces to Karimov, and we'd supply him with nukes. We would have given Saddam nukes, we wouldn't have overthrown him.
Honestly, if you lived in either of these countries, what would you do?
You're asking the wrong person. I'm Irish, I support the cause of Irish unity, and I wish that the IRA had been decimated back in the '70's. Terrorists, I hate those guys.
The current despot is every bit as bad as the mid-1980s government of Afghanistan, if not worse. The US supported the efforts to overthrow that government, despite the fact that the resistance included elements who were Islamic revolutionaries, because we felt the shared cause trumped that fact.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for those who are ground under the foot of the last remaining Stalinist dictatorships to reach the identical conclusion. Especially since there is no evidence of "terrorism"; according to RFE/RL, the trouble in Andijon began with the seizing of a military garrison and a prison - both legitimate targets if your goal is to fight a despotic state.
Making the same mistake over and over again is not a sign that one is reasonable. In some cases, it's a sign of insanity.
When the Iranian Left allied with Islamists like the Ayatollah Khomeini, they were oppressed under an Islamic state. When the communists were overthrown in Afghanistan, the result was another oppressive Islamic state.
Other examples of Islamic states include the genocidal government in the Sudan and Saudi Arabia, which is even more oppressive than Afghanistan under the Taliban.
All of these states support terrorism. All are ruled by laws that make Nazi Germany seem enlightened in comparison.
Are you saying that the United States should support the creation of yet another apartheid-based, genocidal Islamic state? Why would you want us to do that?
I guess she didn't notice that MEMRI has stopped calling the Arab News an agent of the Saudi government.
But even Mary ought to be able to keep straight in her mind a couple of very basic facts:
1. Islamist elements in Central Asia are affected far more by Deobandi Islam than Wahhabi Islam, even if lazy journalists and politicians find it easier to say "wahhabi";
2. Hizb-ut-Tahrir is the group that going out and killing Shi'a on a daily basis. The Shi'a in Saudi Arabia, while badly treated in the past, have not been singled out for murder. They've even gotten themselves into government offices--as office-holders.
Mary really must remember to take her anti-hate pills. She's in grave danger of becoming the Emily Litella of Dean's World. Or perhaps that's her true intent?
You seem to have learned something from Hizb-ut-Tahrir's publicity team – a good offense is the best defense.
Next thing you know, you'll accuse me of being a Saudi-basher. As if criticizing theocratic terror supporters is a bad thing.
Islamist elements in Central Asia are affected far more by Deobandi Islam than Wahhabi Islam, even if lazy journalists and politicians find it easier to say "wahhabi"
That may be true. But our government doesn't call Deobandi terror supporters like the Taliban our "allies." Our president doesn’t hug the Deobandi, he doesn't, kiss them, treat them like family and beg them for favors. We acknowledge the simple fact that the Deobandi are our enemies.
Despite the fact that the Saudis are in many ways more extreme than the Deobandi, we do call the Saudis our allies. That's the problem.
The whole point of this post is that you can't fight fascism with fascism. These 'spontaneous' demonstrations in Uzbekistan and Afghanistan appear to have be related, and there is no indication that freedom is anyone's goal. I don't want to call Karimov an ally, and I don’t want to call Hizb-ut-Tahrir an ally.
I guess she didn't notice that MEMRI has stopped calling the Arab News an agent of the Saudi government
Are you saying that Arab News is a bastion of free speech? Got any proof?
Hizb-ut-Tahrir is the group that going out and killing Shi'a on a daily basis.
Yet the Hizb-ut-Tahrir said that they split from the Saudi Wahhabis because "the Wahabbis were extremists who wanted guerrilla war". It's kind of funny in a sick sort of way.
You seem to know a lot about Hizb-ut-Tahrir, yet you never mentioned them before. Where are they killing Shi'a on a daily basis? What else are they up to? Please tell us more.
"Genocidal government" in Saudi Arabia? You're torturing the word "genocidal" if you think it applies. And since you play so fast and loose with fact--solely to advance your platform of hatred--the a basher you are.
I still hold hope that there's a scrap of reason left for you to grasp, but I fear it's a distant hope.
If you were to do a little research outside the pages of LGF, you might actually find some information about Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Like going to their website.
Had you done so, you'd discover that they are promoting the Deobandi school of radical Islam. For instance, they seek a return of the Khalifa, the Caliphate that faded into nothingness toward the end of the Ottoman Empire.
The Caliphate has nothing to do with Wahhabism, but is very much a part of the noxious blend of ideologies that grew up in 1990s Afghanistan &Pakistan. You tend to label it "Wahhabism," but that's only an indication of your laziness in trying to get things right. Find the word "Caliphate" in any of Abdul Wahhab's writings and I'll give you a buck a piece.
Nice try, but I never said Arab News was a bastion of free speech. I said it was not a Saudi government organ. You're the one who gets sloppy with definitions.
Forget it. This is an utter waste of time. I'm not going to convince you; you're certainly not going to convince me. I'd just as soon ignore that bile you spew, but you're actually a danger that I find hard to ignore.
I apologize to Dean for getting heated. I guess I'll just have to stay away until he can find someone with intellectual honesty to write about these important issues.
I do not know if the uprisings in Uzbekistan are being coordinated by an islamic terrorist organization; given the low quality of the information that comes from Uzbekistan, I don't see how anyone could know for sure one way or the other.
I do know that my experience in conversations with people from Kazakhstan, combined with my knowledge of the state of affairs in the country (my undergraduate degree was in the politics of post-communist states - and while I know a lot more about eastern europe than i do about central asia, central asia has never been entirely off of my radar) suggests that there is no reason for assuming islamism as a cause. These people are horribly oppressed, terribly poor, and in many cases outright *sick*. They need no excuse for a revolution.
I also know that sources I trust - including RFE/RL, whose reportage on the region has generally been reliable - indicate that while islamic revolutionaries are active in the region, there is no evidence that they are coordinating the uprising, and that as far as they can determine it is a genuine popular revolt similar to that seen in the velvet revolution (for example), albeit with a completely *different* state response.
My bias in this is to be highly suspicious of anything the Karimov government says, and to - absent compelling evidence otherwise - assume that this is the fruit of an angry people who won't take it any more.
As far as I can determine, your bias is to be highly suspicious of anyone who might be in league with islamists, and to - absent compelling evidence otherwise - assume that this is the fruit of islamic fascists trying to take over the country.
I don't see any way to reconcile the two without the existence of hard data concerning the identities of the rebels that doesn't seem to be available at this time.
As a side note, I think it's odd that any self-declared conservative would assume that one of the last remaining Stalinists was telling the truth about anything, but that's hardly dispositive - it's merely my observation about the ironies of the world.
That's because it's not clear to me what the US *should* do. I detest the fact that we have an alliance-of-convenience with Karimov, and I think that the fact that we have provided training to Uzbeki troops increased their efficiency in suppressing the rebels - something that is downright disgraceful. But I also recognize that we have that alliance-of-convenience because entering into it was a *necessary condition* for the success of our operation in Afghanistan - it was a bad choice with terrible consequences, but it was a *better* choice than the other available options.
I don't know enough about the state of affairs in Afghanistan today to know if we can safely abandon that alliance-of-convenience. Nor do I know if the rebels actually have the strength to take down the government on their own - and I know that if we were to intervene *militarily* to assist them, it would undermine support for our bases worldwide *and* cause problems with Russia.
Yet Karimov is a thug with whom we should have no traffic, in an ideal world.
So I don't *know* what I want the US to do, and i've been refraining from talking about US options. And, really, the US isn't at issue here - the degree to which we are contributing to the problem is tiny, the degree to which we have the ability to help solve the problem without undermining our other strategic aims isn't much larger, and neither of those are as compelling or as interesting as the courage of those people who stood up to their government and were killed for their trouble.
Thanks for the link to the Hizb-ut-Tahrir website. I have done some reasearch, but I was hoping you could provide some additional info. You seem to know a lot about them.
I'd just as soon ignore that bile you spew, but you're actually a danger that I find hard to ignore.
Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but I was at the mall picking out shirts for my son and shopping for shoes. Now you say I'm dangerous? Cool.
I have to agree with that. That's why I think we should get Russia involved in this. First of all, they have some idea what's going on; they have more influence over Karimov than we do and they seem to want to earn the goodwill of the western world.
They're also less gullible than we are when it comes to dealing with Islamist groups.
Unfortunately, they are too sympathetic with Karimov. If he does lose power, they'll probably provide for his comfortable retirement. He, like most homicidal dictators, will never get the bullet in the head that he so richly deserves.
In any case, if you're willing to agree that some portion of the protesters are Islamists who plan to seize power, then I'm willing to agree that most are just anti-Karimov.