About the site
Oasis online magazine
news
Analytical journalism
Guest book
Magazine       "Oasis"
Year
No. 24 (44) December 2006
№ 23 (43) December 2006
№ 22 (42) November 2006
№ 21 (41) November 2006
№ 20 (40) October 2006
№ 19 (39) October 2006
№ 18 (38) September 2006
№ 17 (37) September 2006
No 16 (36) August 2006
15 (35) August 2006
No. 14 (34) July 2006
№ 13 (33) July 2006
№ 12 (32) June 2006
№ 11 (31) June 2006
No 10 (30) May 2006
No 9 (29) May 2006
№ 8 (28) April 2006
№ 7 (27) April 2006
No. 6 (26) March 2006
No. 5 (25) March 2006
№ 4 (24) February 2006
№ 3 (23) February 2006
№ 2 (22) January 2006
№ 1 (21) January 2006
THE AUTHORS
Subscribe
on       journal [PDF]:
Oleg Panfilov,
project Manager,
panfilov[at]cjes.ru

Dmitry Alyaev,
chief editor,
alyaev[at]cjes.ru

Roman Zyuzin,
webmaster,
webmaster [at] cjes.ru

Adil Dzhalilov,
Kazakhstan,
adild[at]list.ru

a diamond stylus,
Kyrgyzstan,
citizen2005[at]yandex.ru

Nargis Zokirova,
Tajikistan
zokirova77 [at] mail.ru

Representative Names
in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan
not disclosed

Lyudmila Burenkova,
technical editor,
lyuda [at] cjes.ru

Elena Dorokhova,
design,
inwork[at]frw.ru
Hard to be blair
Dmitry Alyaev
That's all. You can say it happened. Recent events with the possibility of British passenger aircraft explosions have allowed analysts to talk about a full-scale attack (recall the recent bombings in London) on this country of terrorists. It turns out that the ingenious British policy to ensure its own security has become obsolete. Recall that this is actually a simple and effective policy, the British followed more than a hundred years. She worked on the principle of the laws of the Soviet criminals: "where you live, do not steal." In other words, London quite officially accepted and granted asylum to dissidents of various stripes from many countries, ranging from Russian socialists and Bolsheviks to the Muslims believing in their own countries. In this way? Britain was guaranteed some security from all sorts of troublemakers. But now they are not taken childly for her.

Everything that was written above looks quite logical and harmonious, if one does not take into account one “but”. In any terrorist acts, there is always a temptation to find out who they really benefit from and do not always believe in the direct involvement in them of those who are charged with responsibility. After all, it is known that violence begets more violence and “unties the hands” of the injured party. There is no need to go far for examples. The Tashkent bombings in 1999 actually contributed to the destruction of all the then legal opposition and the establishment of Islam Karimov’s sole authority in the country. Although there is evidence that the special services of Uzbekistan, in any case, knew in advance, if not more. The events of September 11, too, are considered by many to be too suspicious, not least because of the war on terrorism that started after them, which Washington needed, but for which there was no formal reason or moral justification. The UK, despite all the political upheavals, continued to stay out of the way and was in no way part of a political dependence on the United States, which made it extremely annoying. Now, presumably, she will be more compliant and will "understand" the ardent desire of the United States to "deal", finally, with the entire Islamic world.
DISCUSSION
LEAVE A MESSAGE:
All messages are moderated by the webmaster.
* FIO
* Email
Country
City
* Message
[fields marked with * are required]