<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Andijon Video: The Long Cut</title>
	<atom:link href="http://registan.net/index.php/2006/06/22/andijon-video-the-long-cut/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://registan.net/index.php/2006/06/22/andijon-video-the-long-cut/</link>
	<description>Central Asia News -- All Central Asia, All The Time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:53:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexander</title>
		<link>http://registan.net/index.php/2006/06/22/andijon-video-the-long-cut/comment-page-1/#comment-257024</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.registan.net/?p=6492#comment-257024</guid>
		<description>I watched the whole thing, and broadly speaking I agree with the NYT&#039;s assessment, and even (shudder) that of M.B. Olcott. Like the shorter version we saw before, this shows that the protests in Andijan began with a violent uprising, possibly (though not necessarily) religiously inspired. This longer video actually helps to undermine the weaker portions of the Uzbek Government&#039;s case though. It clearly shows a crowd of hundreds, many women and children, almost all unarmed. There is no evidence to show that they were rounded up by force: the only hostages shown are militsiya being herded into the Hukumat building. That said, the militants must have had some idea that these people would be in danger - but it doesn&#039;t sound as if they were given any chance to disperse by the troops before they opened fire. I just don&#039;t understand why the Uzbek Government has released this video, in this form (I&#039;m assuming that Babajanov was authorised to hand it over to Olcott). Had they published the footage in full, without editing or subtitles, but with a full transcript, in the immediate aftermath of the massacre, they might have received some plaudits for openness and taken the heat out of demands for an enquiry. Had they suppressed it altogether they could have kept us guessing, or at least reliant on the statements of eyewitnesses which they could deny, however unconvincingly. They could even have cut it a lot more drastically than they did. Instead they&#039;ve sat on it for a year, in which time they could have doctored the footage in any manner they chose. They&#039;ve edited it crudely, removed any footage of people actually being killed by Government troops, and provided subtitles for those bits of dialogue they want highlighted (every single cry of &quot;Allahu Akbar&quot;, in other words). But they&#039;ve left the rest of the soundtrack in, without subtitles, but perfectly comprehensible to anyone who knows Uzbek (I can only pick up the odd word). Thus, as Chivers and Wilensky-Langford observ, you can hear the crowd quite clearly yelling &quot;Azadlik&quot; (freedom) as well as &quot;Allahu Akbar&quot;. People make speeches denouncing economic hardship and unjust imprisonment. For all their attempts to suggest that these are dangerous militants of the kind we see marching in Quetta burning US flags, the atmosphere, with its cheers, clapping and whistles, sounds more like a pop concert half the time, made all the more poignant because we know what follows. What is shocking in some ways is the normality of it all, people smiling, chatting, waving, lying on the grass, talking on their mobile phones, having a fag, looking excited or bewildered, iamongst the burning buildings, the slightly hysterical speeches and the appeals for calm. I suppose the intention of the film is to make foreigners feel scared of this crowd of people, hundreds of whom are about to die. In this it singularly fails.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I watched the whole thing, and broadly speaking I agree with the NYT&#8217;s assessment, and even (shudder) that of M.B. Olcott. Like the shorter version we saw before, this shows that the protests in Andijan began with a violent uprising, possibly (though not necessarily) religiously inspired. This longer video actually helps to undermine the weaker portions of the Uzbek Government&#8217;s case though. It clearly shows a crowd of hundreds, many women and children, almost all unarmed. There is no evidence to show that they were rounded up by force: the only hostages shown are militsiya being herded into the Hukumat building. That said, the militants must have had some idea that these people would be in danger &#8211; but it doesn&#8217;t sound as if they were given any chance to disperse by the troops before they opened fire. I just don&#8217;t understand why the Uzbek Government has released this video, in this form (I&#8217;m assuming that Babajanov was authorised to hand it over to Olcott). Had they published the footage in full, without editing or subtitles, but with a full transcript, in the immediate aftermath of the massacre, they might have received some plaudits for openness and taken the heat out of demands for an enquiry. Had they suppressed it altogether they could have kept us guessing, or at least reliant on the statements of eyewitnesses which they could deny, however unconvincingly. They could even have cut it a lot more drastically than they did. Instead they&#8217;ve sat on it for a year, in which time they could have doctored the footage in any manner they chose. They&#8217;ve edited it crudely, removed any footage of people actually being killed by Government troops, and provided subtitles for those bits of dialogue they want highlighted (every single cry of &#8220;Allahu Akbar&#8221;, in other words). But they&#8217;ve left the rest of the soundtrack in, without subtitles, but perfectly comprehensible to anyone who knows Uzbek (I can only pick up the odd word). Thus, as Chivers and Wilensky-Langford observ, you can hear the crowd quite clearly yelling &#8220;Azadlik&#8221; (freedom) as well as &#8220;Allahu Akbar&#8221;. People make speeches denouncing economic hardship and unjust imprisonment. For all their attempts to suggest that these are dangerous militants of the kind we see marching in Quetta burning US flags, the atmosphere, with its cheers, clapping and whistles, sounds more like a pop concert half the time, made all the more poignant because we know what follows. What is shocking in some ways is the normality of it all, people smiling, chatting, waving, lying on the grass, talking on their mobile phones, having a fag, looking excited or bewildered, iamongst the burning buildings, the slightly hysterical speeches and the appeals for calm. I suppose the intention of the film is to make foreigners feel scared of this crowd of people, hundreds of whom are about to die. In this it singularly fails.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

