Why global terrorism attacking Uzbekistan

30 suspects of organizing the terrorist attacks have been detained in Uzbekistan in the last two days.
On March 29 and 30, 22 people were killed and 31 wounded in the series of the attacks in Uzbek capital Tashkent and Bukhara region. On the first day of the terrorist attacks in Uzbekistan some experts said that the blasts could be organized by Uzbek President Islam Karimov to find the excuse for suppressing opposition to his regime. 

Now this version has been abandoned. The attacks do not look like a provocation, they are real acts of terrorism. The same  tactic was used in Iraq and Spain before. In Uzbekistan terrorists modified their attacks according to local specifics: explosions were conducted several days along with the attacks of unidentified militants.
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan has been accused of organizing the blasts, but this looks like a tradition. There have been so many mergers, takeovers and separations within the global terrorist network that its structure and methods resemble an alternative model of globalization – Uzbek and Chechen militants are fighting in Pakistan, Arabs are moving from Chechnya to Iraq. Terrorists go to the countries to which they are not attached with national and cultural ties, to act with the best efficiency. This means any terrorist organization could organize the explosions.

Uzbekistan is very valuable to the anti-terrorist coalition – it provides channels of supply for the coalition force in Afghanistan. If Uzbekistan withdraws from the coalition, global terrorism will benefit greatly. However, withdrawing Uzbekistan could hardly be the purpose of the attacks. This country is very different from Spain. Even if Uzbek people decide that their country should withdraw, it will change nothing: public opinion has no meaning for Uzbek authorities. Probably, the terrorists had the purpose of destabilizing the situation in one of the most stable and secular Islamic countries.

Join the discussion on the issues of terrorism at PRAVDA Forum

Click here to see photos of anti-terrorist special force in Tajikistan.


 

The United States' Head of Diplomacy, or Secretary of State, is an anachronistic, incompetent, meddling, intrusive, insolent and arrogant, rude individual, a brash, foul-mouthed upstart, a conceited, self-important guttersnipe and an insult to the international community, as fit for the job as a pedophile janitor in a grade school.

Tillerson must go!