Sovay has been following the reports on today's Uzbek suicide bombers. She thinks the fault may lie with the brutality of the dictator:
By supporting a repressive dictator, while claiming to champion freedom and democracy, the U.S. proves once again to the Muslim world that its rhetoric is empty, which deals a blow to our credibility. Karimov's repression has also fueled the radicalization of Muslims in the country....I'll go out on a limb here and wager that it wasn't Hizb-ut-Tahrir. For one thing, HuT relies upon a stance that avoids militism in order to maintain its havens in the West, such as London, from whence it publishes Khilafah magazine bi-monthly. It's linked to terrorist groups from Uzbekistan to Algeria, and is a terrorist-supporting organization, but it provides moral rather than physical support. In this way they are able to provide legally untouchable propaganda outfits and act as funnels for recruitment without risking being shut down or deported. I'd be at least mildly surprised to discover that they had suddenly abandoned this strategy at this late date. As they themselves said in reference to charges by the gov't of Uzbekistan:The attacks that have so far killed 19 people may be aimed more at a repressive government than at an ally of the United States. It'll also be interesting to see who exactly was behind these bombings: a reconstituted Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Hizb-ut-Tahrir or another group.
The world knows that Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party based on Islam and advocates change through intellectual and political activity. It has never used violence since its establishment in Jerusalem in 1953, despite the severe torture, oppression and murder that its members have faced by the corrupt rulers of the Muslim countries.More to the point, there's no indication in their literature that they've been building up toward such a major shift. You can read their documents online in a number of countries; Google will take you to most of them, but don't miss 1924, which isn't as obviously an outlet of theirs. If the Party of Liberation was going to turn that sharply, I'd have expected some statements that would be used as justification for the policy shift. I haven't seen anything like that.
UPDATE: The Argus has a post on topic. Hat tip: The Agonist, who has some analysis of his own.
UPDATE: Turns out Doc Russia has family ties to Uzbekistan. He thinks the President-is-a-tyrant line doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment