Archive for the ‘Uzbekistan’ Category

Posted by Tim Ireland at June 30, 2005

Category: The War on Stupid, Uzbekistan

I tell you, it’s a crying shame that the courts; “(have) no power to make any decision or interfere in any way in which taxes are spent”… because I’m a taxpayer and I’m fucking *ropeable* that my government spent 175k on training soldiers involved in the Uzbekistan massacre and we *still* don’t know how many protestors terrorists they potted.

Damn it, I want to know where my money goes and if it’s being spent efficiently!

Guardian – UK trained Uzbek troops weeks before massacre

The official figures, prompted by a question from Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, Michael Moore.

Take another look at Bush’s crew chumming up with Karimov.

Perhaps Craig can find us a picture of Jack Straw massaging baby oil into his back.

UPDATE – Ooh, look! We even provided essential military equipment.

Posted by Tim Ireland at June 20, 2005

Category: The War on Stupid, Uzbekistan

How many people were shot dead for protesting in Uzbekistan? Was it 15? 500? More?

Well, it looks like we’ll never know now. But, at least we can sleep soundly in our beds knowing that they were shot humanely, effectively and efficiently:

New York Times – Uzbek Ministries in Crackdown Received U.S. Aid: Uzbek law enforcement and security ministries implicated by witnesses in the deadly crackdown in the city of Andijon last month have for years received training and equipment from counterterrorism programs run by the United States, according to American officials and Congressional records. The security aid, provided by several United States agencies, has been intended in part to improve the abilities of soldiers and law enforcement officers from the Uzbek intelligence service, military and Ministry of Internal Affairs, the national law enforcement service. Besides equipment aid, at least hundreds of special forces soldiers and security officers, many of whom fight terrorism, have received training.

And what did Karimov claim to be doing when he ordered the shooting of protestors? That’s right, he claimed to be fighting terrorism. And we provided the training and the bullets!

Yes, I mean *we*, white boy:

Private Eye (No 1134): While foreign secretary Jack Straw rushed to condemn Uzbekistan’s army for shooting dead civilians in Andijan, no one bothered to suspend the British Army’s training programme for the very same Uzbek soldiers. The ministry of defence told Private Eye that the UK-Uzbekistan military cooperation programme was under review following the shootings, but had not been suspended. Under this programme Uzbek officers train at Sandhurst, the Royal College of Defence Studies in London and at the Joint Service Command and Staff College near Swindon.

But don’t hold your breath for a “Prince Harry trains side-by-side with terror squad” headline in the Scum anytime soon.

PS – Considering that it’s your taxes paying for this, you might want to take a peek at the following item…

BBC – Blair called to protester’s trial: Tony Blair has been summonsed to appear at a Weymouth court for the trial of a woman who refuses to pay her income tax in protest against the Iraq war. Pat Blackburn’s son-in-law was killed in the conflict, and she refuses to pay more than £16,000 in tax until Mr Blair resigns or apologises. The judge at her trial has backed her calls for the Prime Minister to appear as a witness.

Posted by Tim Ireland at June 6, 2005

Category: Consume!, Uzbekistan

I’d like to talk to you about respect.

Blair made a big noise about it following the election and promised it would be the key to his histrionic third term (note: not a typo). But how can a man revive respect when he himself is notorious for ignoring the will of the electorate where possible and bamboozling them with spin when it’s not? How can a government that’s abandoned the principles of its party in order to retain power dare to even use the word? How can a government that allows corporations to quite literally get away with murder hope to earn the trust of the people it is supposed to protect?

I’ve spent a great deal of time reading, thinking and planning these past four weeks. The material I’ve been reading has been pretty varied… from new material on the Iraq war to Nixon’s attempts to emulate the work of Dick Tuck that brought about his downfall. So I was greatly pleased to discover – just before I sat down to write this – someone else joining a couple of similar dots…

Sunday Herald – Reaction to Deep Throat’s unmasking highlights the double standards that apply in a world where truth is impeached: But such are the times we live in. In fact, those who are nostalgic for Nixon must look on the Bush administration with a certain envy. Dicky got done for dirty tricks, lies and illegal slush funds. Here’s George with his secret military tribunals, indefinite detentions without charge, kidnapping, torture, systematic breaches of international law, manipulation of the media, and a pile of lies that could dam the Potomac: nothing happens… Tony Blair has shrugged off two official (but not unfriendly) inquiries into the Iraq escapade, and brushed aside talk of impeachment. Even if someone in Downing Street had a fit of conscience and remembered the conversation in which Blair said, “Yup, I know it’s illegal, but there you go”, nothing would follow.

An unknown number of people were shot dead in Uzbekistan for protesting against injustice (read more), but – as expected – this has pretty much blown over. Karimov relied heavily on the ‘extremist’ card in this bluff, and it worked. Closer to home, the G8 summit looms and those who may wish to travel north to call for responsible action over self-interest are portrayed as… potentially violent extremists. Nobody’s been shot (yet) but I hope you can see the connection.

This messaging has a very important dual role to play. It overshadows and undermines the message of the people who are willing to speak out and it discourages those who might otherwise join them.

Meanwhile corporations that earn more money and hold more power than some nations continue to get away with poisoning the environment and the populace.

Let’s take the humble potato-chip as an example…

Walkers have fronting their brand Gary Lineker – the Ultimate Nice Guy. Playing the Bad Guy. If the irony of this escapes you, it’s because Walker’s other publicity front is busy hiding some important facts from you. To maintain a healthy colour, Walkers suck all the stuff out of the potatoes that makes them taste like potatoes, and then replaces this with chemicals. They call these flavour-enhancers “nature identical”. Walkers uses a blend of oils to cook their crisps, but the bulk of it is made up of a saturated fat known as palm oilein. It’s not as healthy as sunflower oil, but it’s cheaper. Its production is devastating the environment in Malaysia and neighbouring countries… but it’s cheaper. Walkers manages to keep pretty quite about this… until they reduce the amount of palm oilein it uses by a nominal percentage and expect us to be grateful.

Can you taste the respect? Mmmmm, tangy!

This same process repeats itself again and again across a broad range of industries. The company projects a Happy and Responsible Brand while the more important PR team (the one you never hear about) busies itself hiding dirty secrets by wooing or bullying media owners, spreading disinformation and/or attacking critics via corporate-sponsored ‘independent bodies’.

And what protection can we expect from our government? I can answer that question with a single name: Lord Sainsbury.

I ask again; can you taste the respect?

The food we eat, the cars we drive, the clothes we wear… almost every aspect of our lives is being used to bleed us and the planet dry. Most of this is dressed up as a choice as the blame is shifted to the consumer. But the reality is that market forces press us ever closer to Generica, as choice narrows and the problem compounds. So much so that anybody concerned about it will usually spend so much time minimising their footprint that they have no time left to address the wider problem. Clever, no?

Traditional media does very little to help. If there isn’t outright contrition, there is at the very least a lot of good people doing nothing. The global media network (and – locally – UK libel laws) conspire to protect corporations at the cost of the rights of the individual and/or distract the populace with gesture politics. (Let’s save Africa through text-messaging and plastic arm-bands!)

Even the cost of this is compounding, as the many media outlets celebrate celebrity and/or pursue the cheap fodder to be had from ‘reality’ television. There are so many people who are famous simply for being famous that most children today plan their career around their scheduled 15 minutes. So few dreams involve effecting actual change that even now those who hold such aims find it hard to gain support and reach critical mass. But if you want to suck the money out of a quarter of a million wallets, it’s as easy as ba-ding-ding-ding-ding-bawwwwwwwwwwwww.

Despite this, I’m still willing to try. And I hope you are, too. Without the balance provided by simple transparency, criticism and subsequent calls for accountability, this world would be in an even sorrier state.

And the key to this is respect.

Respect for your fellow man should prompt action. Respect for yourself should help you to endure the kicking you’ll get as a reward.

(PS – Balders and I are cooking something up that we hope will help. It should be with you by late summer. In the meantime, we’re also going to be building a little something to keep an eye on that loveable media magnate, Rupert Murdoch.)

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 31, 2005

Category: Flash Music Video, Games and Objects, Uzbekistan

Cool game: Buzz around Brighton avoiding the law.

How to Perform Strong Man Stunts (link via latest B3ta newsletter – also see B3ta explained by

The best website for a musical artist that I’ve seen in a very long time.

Steve Irwin is a nitwit. Alby Mangels, on the other hand, is a living god.

Via Peter Gasston: Pledgebank offers you a chance to say “I will do xxxx if xx other people do the same.” Here’s an ambitious example: “I will refuse to register for an ID card but only if 3,000,000 people will sign up.”

Bing-ding-ding-dingdingWatch it fade away as the so-called defenders of democracy quietly allow Karimov to bluff his way through:
BBC – US senators push for Uzbek probe
New York Times – 3 U.S. Senators Seek Inquiry Into Killings in Uzbekistan

I hope that someone gets my… I hope that someone gets my…

Carnival of Chaos cries “Foul!”

Strange that Pervert – The Movie should not warrant a review on (incidentally, the CAP Ministry wishes to advise you that The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy contains “destruction of the Earth”, “parasite penetration into a human head” a “tale of man not being the most intelligent life on Earth” and “claims that man is an ape descendant, repeatedly”).

Coca-Cola and sport: the key to global harmony.

I blogged this ages ago, but the file disappeared for a while. Now it’s back: Posting And You

Safety at Work (link via The Ultimate Insult)

UPDATE – Image (to right) posted to B3ta

UPDATE – Another image (that will make you feel *so* much better) posted to B3ta

UPDATE – Oh, go on… have another

UPDATE – And another

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 18, 2005

Category: The War on Stupid, Uzbekistan

News of Kylie Minogue’s breast cancer tragedy preceded an item on the emerging body count in Uzbekistan on ITV news last night. That pleased me greatly.

Today Kylie is on almost every front page and The Scum have close to a dozen pages of coverage and analysis.

Poor Kylie. Poor, brave Kylie.

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 16, 2005

Category: The War on Stupid, Uzbekistan

We could not ask for a better Foreign Secretary in this time of crisis in Uzbekistan.

Jack Straw has experience in domestic and foreign affairs:

1995 – 1997: Shadow Home Secretary
1997 – 2001: Home Secretary
2001-present: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Jack Straw knows there are large grey areas in this large and complex war on terror.

And, most important of all:

Jack Straw is a man who knows that you have to draw the line when police start shooting protestors in the street.

Let’s begin with a close look at Jack Straw’s experience of dealing with protest and the voice of dissent:

In the UK, there are people who feel so strongly that they suffer from a lack of democracy, justice and freedom under the current regime that they are prepared to do something about it. The day of action that best symbolises this movement is May Day.

And since Blair came to power, a programme to eradicate May Day, initially headed by Jack Straw, has been largely successful.

In Uzbekistan, we are told by authorities that the people marching in the streets are not protestors, but dangerous extremists. We are assured that any members of the general populace present are only there to surround the core extremists as a form of human shield. So it’s OK to shoot a few of them, while trying to keep the whole affair as low-key as possible by keeping the actual number of people who got shot under wraps.

In the UK, a lot of the same methods were used to combat May Day. Organisers were regularly depicted as extremists and efforts were made to discourage ‘ordinary’ members of the public from continuing with the full march (i.e. not turning up at the end where all the TV cameras are) by suggesting that they would – in effect – be used as a human shield (I actually watched this happen in Shaftesbury Avenue in 2003) and/or by threatening to group them with the ‘extremists’. The carefully edited crowd of determined protestors were then deliberately herded together and detained ‘for their own safety’ and/or goaded into a fight.

But nobody got shot in the street. Well done, Jack.

Of course, operating as Foreign secretary, Jack Straw so wanted democracy, justice and freedom for Iraqis that he was prepared to bomb or shoot a few of them, while trying to keep the whole affair as low-key as possible by keeping the actual number of people who got bombed or shot under wraps… but that involves them, not us. And it was part of a fight for the spread of democracy. There is no double standard so long as you accept these important defining aspects.

Back to the bit where nobody got shot in the street. Why? Because this is where the line is for Jack Straw. This, for instance, is what it takes for him to speak up about Uzbekistan, when he has previously been largely silent or busy keeping other people quiet about it…

Telegraph – Straw at odds with US over brutality of terror war ally: He said the situation was “very serious” and there had been a “clear abuse” of human rights. Mr Straw’s remarks were in contrast to the near silence in Washington where the brutal crackdown in Uzbekistan has posed an acute dilemma.

Compare with:
Indymedia – UK torture: Interview with Craig Murray: Ex-British Ambassador to Uzbekistan
BBC – Report praises suspended diplomat
Common Dreams – Fighting Terror with Terror?
Chicken Yoghurt – Poisoned Chalice

So, that’s…

1) Shooting people in the street; not on.
2) Boiling people alive on the QT: go to it.

But there is no double standard here, either.

The people who were boiled alive were part of a bold initiative by the US and UK government to gain intelligence for the war on Iraq and the war on terror (which, many people believe, are one and the same thing). And even though we hold many dangerous extremists who deserve no better, we distance ourselves from the distasteful practice of torture by outsourcing the (ahem) awkward work.

This takes us back to them, not us.

It’s them torturing people, not us.

Further, as we’re talking about Islamic extremists here, it’s them, Vs. us.

So they do the dirty work against them.

Us? We come up smelling like roses. And there’s the genius of it.

If we tortured and murdered people ourselves and word got out, there would be hell to pay. Thankfully, word has mostly failed to get out.

Also – and I do hate to harp on about this, but it’s a very positive aspect, so I hope you’ll excuse me – in Blair’s Britain, nobody gets shot in the street. Sure, a few innocent people get shot in the street in Iraq, but mostly by US troops, which makes it a double them. We’ve shot a few protestors in Iraq ourselves, but – as these comments make clear – they were really dangerous extremists.

That’s not shooting innocent people in your own streets. That’s shooting extremists on somebody else’s street. That happened over there to control them. This is an entirely different barrel of fish, which often requires heavy ordinance (more on the Fallujah massacre here).

But in Blair’s Britain, nobody gets shot – or blown up – in the street. That’s a step too far.

It’s important to note here that the ruling government in Uzbekistan has strong laws, excellent border and internal policing, and total control over domestic media. They may actually get away with keeping a lid on this.

However, here in the UK many of the stronger laws have yet to be passed, people are more or less free to come and go as they please, and the government only has partial control over some media.

Basically, it’s harder to keep things quiet when you go around shooting people in the street.

So we don’t do that kind of thing, because it threatens what is essentially a pretty sweet deal.

And that’s why Jack Straw is just the man to speak out about the shootings in Uzbekistan. He has the experience and wisdom required to know that dissent must be silenced through subtle, silent or legal forms of persuasion (that last bit is easier if you yourself pass the necessary laws). He knows that you can’t simply go around shooting people in the street… because it threatens what is essentially a pretty sweet deal.

All Karimov has to do now is stop shooting people in the street, keep a lid on the numbers, then continue to insist that it was a valid fight for freedom against Islamic extremists/militants/insurgents, and everything will be Jake.

So Jake, in fact, that Jack can go back to overlooking a few things like the rounding up of dissidents in the dead of night for essential processing – which is, of course, part of the ongoing battle for democracy, justice and freedom. For us, not them, obviously…


Guardian – Uzbek regime clamps down as unrest flares

Observer – Anger as US backs brutal regime: Outrage among human rights groups followed claims by the White House on Friday that appeared designed to justify the violence of the regime of President Islam Karimov, claiming – as Karimov has – that ‘terrorist groups’ may have been involved in the uprising. Critics said the US was prepared to support pro-democracy unrest in some states, but condemn it in others where such policies were inconvenient.

Independent – Hundreds of civilians killed after protests turn to massacre: As Uzbekistan awoke to the scale of the massacre of Andijan yesterday, the city in the Ferghana valley was enclosed in a ring of steel, with roadblocks ensuring no one got in or out of the scene of the country’s bloodiest day in the post-Soviet era… Inside the city, out of the reach of international observers, survivors were burying the victims of what the regime of Islam Karimov was calling a victory against Islamic insurgents. Witnesses described it as a slaughter of civilians… The Independent made two attempts to bypass the checkpoints around the city but our reporter was briefly threatened with detention and then escorted to the nearby city of Namangan, under the guard of a man who identified himself as a police colonel.

Observer Blog – Uzbekistan, some quotes

Posted by Tim Ireland at May 2, 2005

Category: The War on Stupid, Uzbekistan

The threat of terror is real. The ‘war’ on terror is a lie.

And since September 2001, Tony Blair and his cohorts have been either misrepresenting the terrorist threat, manipulating the terrorist threat, mismanaging the terrorist threat, and/or misrepresenting and manipulating the terrorist threat in a way that amounts to gross mismanagement.

The following charge sheet is presented for ready reference. I urge you to read it and absorb it ahead of Osama bin Laden’s inevitable appearance later this week, when he will engineer a successful strike (unlikely) and/or release a video urging people to vote against Blair (very likely).

He will do this knowing full well that it will result in a knee-jerk reaction that benefits Blair.

Because Osama bin Laden needs Blair, just as he needs Bush.

Here’s a list of whys, whats, and WTFs:

Jo Moore planned to use the grand spectacle of September 11 to bury the bad news of Councillors expenses. She wrote the offending email at 2:55pm GMT (10:55am EST), when both towers of the World Trade Centre had been in flames for close to two hours, and people trapped on the upper floors could be seen leaping to their deaths. Pressure from Downing St and/or senior ministers ensured that she kept her job for 5 months after this disgraceful and callous act.

My verdict: Evidence of manipulation.

We’ve known of or suspected for quite some time that Blair had committed to war long before a ‘decision’ was taken, and now we have confirmation (1, 2). Blair claimed that Saddam had WMD. He also suggested time and again that Saddam Hussein had links to Al Qaeda. Hussein therefore didn’t have to be aggressive to his neighbours or the West in order to be a threat; all he had to do was provide Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. That he didn’t have. Or even just – in theory – to be able (sometime in the future… maybe) to provide Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. That he didn’t have. It was in this way that the ‘war’ on terror was carefully woven into justification for war against Iraq.

My verdict: Evidence of manipulation and misrepresentation.

And let’s not forget that that the illegal invasion actually created a haven for terrorists, and swept weapons and explosives into their waiting arms.

My verdict: Evidence of gross mismanagement.

Before the war, as millions of us prepared to march in protest, Blair rolled tanks into Heathrow. The best explanation that could be offered at the time was this was “an ongoing operation in relation to a specific threat”. Even if – if – this action resulted from a credible threat (and we have yet to see evidence of it), this amounts to a terrible miscalculation, as Blair was already on weak ground because of his manipulation of the threat, and the timing ensured that the protestors felt as intimidated as the terrorists.

My verdict: Mismanagement only if we give Blair the benefit of the doubt. Manipulation if we don’t.

But it gets better. The pro-war lobby have deliberately blurred the line between protestors and terrorists. The logic is that we oppose a war which is clearly part of the ‘war’ on terror, therefore we side with the terrorists. In the US, money earmarked for the ‘war’ on Terror has actually been spent fighting protestors. Here in the UK, anti-terror powers were used against protesters at an arms fair and further crime and terror laws deliberately target types of protest and even individual protestors.

My verdict: Evidence of manipulation and misrepresentation.

But it gets even better. Do you remember when George W. Bush came to town? We were assured that the exclusion zone around him was for security reasons, but – at the same time – we were assured that his visit was not the reason why were placed at the highest state of alert since September 11. Which lasted for the duration of his photo opportunity. George Bush invited himself to town in order to paint himself as a great statesman, and Blair complied. If the threat was not real, then it was played up (or made up) in order to minimise protest. If the threat was real, Bush willingly (and unnecessarily) placed our leaders and the general population (including a school full of photogenic children) under that threat.

My verdict: Evidence of manipulation and/or misrepresentation.

Civil liberties have became more of an issue as the post-911 panic died down and people started to realise what we were being expected to sacrifice in the name of ‘freedom’. And wasn’t it funny that each time issues such as ID cards or detention without trial approached a debate/voting/action stage that there was a major terror arrest or ‘revelation’? Here are three recent examples:

Nov 23 2004 – Queen’s speech with focus on security heralded by ‘evidence’ of plans to attack Canary Wharf

Mar 11 2005 – The big push on detention without trial (timeline here) is preceded by the launch of an anti-terror campaign, designed to protect us from “hundreds of potential terrorists” that want to kill us.

Apr 15 2005 – Ricin conspiracy involving no ricin and no conspiracy closely followed by renewed calls for ID cards (that would have prevented something that didn’t happen) and this timely announcement by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

My verdict: Evidence of manipulation and misrepresentation.

I’ve already mentioned the logistical benefit of the illegal invasion of Iraq to terrorist groups. Now let’s think strategy. Let’s think Guantanamo Bay. Let’s think Abu Ghraib. Yes, we were involved. Somehow the public got the idea that the people detained in Abu Ghraib were all terrorists (which allowed them to slot the horror of torture under ‘if anyone deserves it…’) but the truth is that many of these detainees were soldiers, insurgents, or even relatives of soldiers or insurgents. And the main question of the day would have been; “Where are the weapons?”… that didn’t exist. The largely unspoken lie that torture was justified because these people were terrorists aided actual terrorists, who began to kidnap and execute people in the name of the victims of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib – and use these illegal acts as recruitment tools for their cause.

My verdict: Evidence of manipulation, misrepresentation and mismanagement.

Let’s stick with torture for a moment, and take a look at a tin-pot dictator who tortured his people. Some were boiled alive. Did we invade that country on the basis of a clear and immediate threat humanitarian intervention? No, because this was Uzbekistan, friend of the US, and doing ‘good work’ on the ‘war’ against terror (never mind that the intelligence gathered was flawed). Did Blair’s government intervene? Did they speak out? No, they turned a blind eye. And when the ambassador to that country spoke up, Jack Straw tried to shut him up by throwing ludicrous charges at him, including the “hiring of dolly birds” and having sex in his office with local girls in exchange for visas to the UK. Compare this to former Home Secretary and ‘on message’ team member David Blunkett, who actually did do naughty things with his penis, fathered a child by another man’s wife, and fast-tracked a visa in the process. “You leave government,” wrote Blair, “with your integrity intact.”

My verdict: Evidence of manipulation, misrepresentation and mismanagement.

This series of events have resulted in a fear that far outweighs the actual threat and enabled Al Qaeda in a way that increases their ability to be that threat.

This series of events has added to their numbers, increased their access to weaponry and chipped away at the belief in our leaders that is required for readiness should Al Qaeda come close to engineering a strike on British soil.

This is why Osama bin Laden needs Blair.

This is why – later this week – he is sure to appear and support Blair’s cause by declaring that you must vote against him.

If you fall for it and cling to Blair’s skirt for fear of getting blowed up, you will have played right into bin Laden’s hands and allowed Al Qaeda to disrupt our democracy. Yet further.

UPDATE (5 May) – Osama did not make an appearance that preceded the UK general election, but his failure to appear does nothing to disprove the above charges.

Posted by Tim Ireland at March 2, 2005

Category: The Reality-Based Community, Uzbekistan

I’d like to introduce you to Luca’s Ade. His new blog has an Orwellian focus and deals with it in much more depth than I could ever manage. Enjoy.

UPDATE – On this most recent post; it’s worth pointing out that there *was* a man in Uzbekistan who appears to have been boiled alive for the benefit of UK and US intelligence (if not specifically at their request; we prefer a good fry-up we do).

Apparently Jack Straw lost a bit of sleep over that and then carried on as normal.

Posted by Tim Ireland at March 2, 2005

Category: The War on Stupid, Uzbekistan

Independent – Peers line up to condemn ‘terrifying’ house arrest plan

Guardian – Muslims face increased stop and search

BBC – Immigrant abuse claims examined

Take a close look at that last story and then ask yourself why The Sun today focus so heavily on a drink-driving illegal immigrant. Today’s editorial even goes so far as to ask; “How many thousands more are there like Chisango? Why can’t we round them up and ship them back home?”

Message: they deserve what they get. Ignore the lefties at the BBC. They would prefer it if drink-driving drug-dealing disease-ridden foreign scroungers overwhelmed us.


Here you go, feed your eyes before we move on…

Has Tara Conlan got herself a new job with a less scummy newspaper? Have I actually managed to (ahem) rattle Satan’s cage?

Interesting comments on house arrest continue at the new Guardian blog. You may also be interested in this not-entirely-unrelated story from the States. That first link also leads us to your typical BBC feedback page, BTW. One has to wonder how many ‘all for it’ messages are planted by pro-government dupes.

Oh, and in case you missed it yesterday, here’s someone wondering if I’m a Tory. Whoops; there goes another one!

Hm, I’d best check my moral compass just to be sure…


Speak your mind, but keep in mind that we all know what Tom’s position is. He has the balls to keep comments intact, so please keep it civil.

Governor Arnold mimicking Bush with his own phoney news.

Via Chicken Yoghurt…. New York Times – U.S. Cites Array of Rights Abuses by the Iraqi Government in 2004 (this article does not mention personal executions undertaken by the interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi).

But wait… it gets better…

Democracy Now – Intelligence Inc: The Privatization of U.S. Interrogations at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Afghanistan (link via Logical Voice).

I saw some evidence of this last night on Channel 4 during Torture: The Dirty Business.

If you haven’t been keeping up with it all, I urge you to start now. There’s more tonight.

It was during last night’s programme that I was reminded of Craig Murray.

Here’s more…

Indymedia – UK torture: Interview with Craig Murray: Ex-British Ambassador to Uzbekistan
BBC – Report praises suspended diplomat
Commin Dreams – Fighting Terror with Terror?

That’s why you have a rushed link-dump this morning, folks. I need to spend time tracking this man down. Because I’m going to build him a website.

His story has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, so I’m hoping that you’ll help me to help him tell it to as many people as possible via Teh Interwebs.

UPDATE – Craig has just launched… I think you’ll agree that it could do with some work. I’ll make an offer today.

UPDATE – Chicken Yoghurt – Poisoned Chalice: The Government have belatedly come round to the idea that human rights in Uzbekistan might be a good idea. FO minister Bill Rammell was due to visit Tashkent “to press the government on its poor rights record” but the Uzbek government have vetoed the trip.

  • NEW! You can now support Bloggerheads by buying handmade firelighters for camping and utility or deluxe firelighters for your home fireplace. Visit to see my products.

    Fire Burn Good fire lighters

  • External Channels

  • Tim Ireland

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons