A new hot-spot of Islamist terror in Central Asia? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Japan to Turkmenistan to New Zealand.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14916478
Now that the terrorist operation in Syria is drawing to its close, the Anglo-Americans are ready to deploy their Islamist proxy fighters to a new theater of war.

Having kept Afghanistan in a constant state of war for decades, this is the ideal breeding ground for the Jihadists to regroup and prepare for a new mission. A few thousand fighter won't be enough to threaten the Russian Federation, but with the support of their Western backers and a multi-layered hybrid attack, it could stir up a good deal of trouble in Muslim regions.

Increased terrorist activities in Central Asia could also be useful for derailing the integration of Eurasian economies and the Belt and Road Initiative.

One day soon the World will have had enough of the terror stirred up by the Anglo-American Imperialists.

SPECIAL SERVICE'S AGENT: ATTACK ON RUSSIA IS BEING PREPARED

15.05.2018, Afghanistan, Andrey Afanasyev

Sources in the Russian law enforcement agencies, citing data from closed communication channels with the Defense Ministries of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan, say that the operation to prepare a large-scale hybrid offensive against Russia through Tajikistan and Uzbekistan is in the final phase.

Reports of this have been received earlier, in particular, this was mentioned at a recent security conference held in Tashkent. Then the head of the Tajik Foreign Ministry Sirodzhiddin Aslov openly announced the activation of terrorists in the region:

The activation of terrorist groups, their advancement to the northern regions of Afghanistan, especially in the territories bordering Tajikistan, the increase in the number of ISIS supporters, as well as the participation of a certain number of citizens of the post-Soviet republics in the terrorist groups and movements present in Afghanistan ... causes our serious concern

This problem was also voiced at the Seventh Conference on International Security, held recently in Moscow. According to Russian intelligence agencies, at the moment the combat potential of the Islamic State ranges from 2500 to 4000 people. This is also confirmed by sources from the Ministry of Defense of China. The Chinese military claims at least 3,800 militants operating in 160 terrorist cells. Their greatest concentration is in the province of Nangarhar, in which the Islamic State increases the production and smuggling of drugs, as well as creates an infrastructure for the training of terrorists and recruits local people.

The plan

According to Russian and Chinese law enforcement agencies, militants fleeing the sea from Syria and Iraq follow a route from the Qasim port in the Pakistani city of Karachi to Peshawar, and are then distributed along the Nangarhar province in the east of the country. Representatives of the top leadership of the radicals are located in the Achin district.

In addition, it is noted that since late 2017 the leaders of the Islamic State managed to transfer from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan an additional 500 foreign fighters, including more than two dozen women. A source in one of the Russian law enforcement agencies says:

All of them are also in the province of Nangarhar. They are citizens of Sudan, Kazakhstan, Czech Republic, Uzbekistan, France and so on.

Movement of militants to the north is planned to be organized in two directions. In Tajikistan, the radicals will penetrate the provinces of Nuristan and Badakhshan, and to Turkmenistan - through the provinces of Farah, Ghor, Sari-Pul and Faryab.

The executor

Governor of Nangarhar Province, Gulab Mangal, personally oversees militant activities in the region, which plans to expand its influence over other regions of the country at the expense of the radicals. In addition, he actively participates in the financial activities of the Islamic State, receiving significant profits. The network informs that any protest actions of the population dissatisfied with the activities of the Islamic State are "severely suppressed by the provincial authorities, including through punitive operations against whole settlements."

Mangal has a long-standing relationship with the US intelligence services. In particular, he fought against the Soviet forces during the Afghan campaign of the USSR. Immediately after the US invasion in 2001, he was appointed as the head of the local government of the Pashtuns, the people to which he belongs. Also, Mangal is loved by the Western press. Most of the publications in the major American and British media contain exceptionally positive information about him, and the BBC called him "the hope of Helmand province," which Mangal previously headed.

According to the Ministry of Defense of Afghanistan, in the near future the leadership of the Islamic State plans to expand the grouping by another 1.2 thousand militants. Most of them will also be located in the province, under the control of Gulab Mangal and his people.

It is worth noting that the two largest US bases in Afghanistan are in the immediate vicinity of the Nangarhar province, which is hardly worth considering as a coincidence.

At the same time, the expert community points out that the pressure on Tajikistan and Turkmenistan will be only one of the vectors of the new hybrid attack on Russia. Director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise Valery Korovin is confident that Moscow should prepare for a large-scale offensive of geopolitical opponents on all fronts: in Ukraine, possibly through Armenia, as well as a number of other post-Soviet countries:

The probability of an exacerbation in Central Asia

Why do Americans do this?

Destabilizing the situation in Central Asia, the US and its allies will achieve several goals at once. First, in this way, Washington can distract Moscow and Tehran from Syria. Secondly, if the operation succeeds, a focus of instability will be created along the path of the One-Belt-One-Road project, which is designed to strengthen the economic and logistical integration of Eurasia. Afghanistan also borders Iran in the west, which opens a new front against Tehran if necessary. It will happen synchronously with the exacerbation in several directions. Starting with economic pressure through new sanctions, ending with "color revolutions" that will continue in the post-Soviet space, and direct aggression from American networks. Obviously, the United States did not seize Afghanistan, by rigging its military dictatorship there, in order to build democracy and civil society there. This is a springboard for the creation of terrorist networks, with the help of which the US is preparing an aggression against Iran and Russia.
#14916579
@Atlantis
Destabilizing the situation in Central Asia, the US and its allies will achieve several goals at once. First, in this way, Washington can distract Moscow and Tehran from Syria

pressure on Tajikistan and Turkmenistan will be only one of the vectors of the new hybrid attack on Russia. Director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise Valery Korovin is confident that Moscow should prepare for a large-scale offensive of geopolitical opponents on all fronts: in Ukraine, possibly through Armenia, as well as a number of other post-Soviet countries:

I like it … Cheap and effective + it directs extremists away from our resources and initiatives. A+ all around at the war college.

Zam
#14916589
Zamuel wrote:I like it … Cheap and effective + it directs extremists away from our resources and initiatives. A+ all around at the war college.


That's a very cynical attitude. At least the Empire tries to cover it's cynical motives under a cloak of good intentions.

History shows that it doesn't always work like that. The chicken like to come home to roost. Remember 9/11?
#14916607
Atlantis wrote:That's a very cynical attitude. At least the Empire tries to cover it's cynical motives under a cloak of good intentions.

History shows that it doesn't always work like that. The chicken like to come home to roost. Remember 9/11?


Perhaps you should watch that flag scene from Patton again … We're American, we like to win .



I do remember 9/11 … do you remember 5/1/11 ?

Zam :eek:
#14916608
The Great Game continues....

Guys like Atlantis are strange people. They support the capitalist system, but deplore the imperialism and blood-soaked competition for the world's strategic resources which is an inevitable consequence of that system. They seem to think that they can 'tame' capitalism and make it serve human society rather than human society serving the needs of capitalism. They are trying to have capitalism without capitalism (the 'social market') and imperialism without imperialism (the EU). They are deluding themselves. Pointing out the facts of life is not 'cynicism', it is realism.
#14916610
Potemkin wrote:They support the capitalist system, but deplore the imperialism and blood-soaked competition for the world's strategic resources which is an inevitable consequence of that system.

You're a smart and knowledgeable guy, but you keep posting assertions of this sort. Are you telling me there wasn't lethal competition for hunting and fishing grounds amongst hunter gatherers? Bands, Tribes, Chiefdoms, horticultural, ancient empires and Feudal societies have all engaged in lethal competition for limited natural resources.

The value of land agricultural land, oil and mined resources as a percentage of total production has fallen massively over the last centuries. The economics of empire were pretty dubious in the nineteenth century. By 1914 there was zero economic case for third world expansion. In the last hundred years the economic case for empire has only got worse. We intervene in the less developed world for prestige, ideological / humanitarian security concerns, not as a business proposition. Commodity prices were falling in the 1930s. There was no economic rationale for the second world war for any side, aside from the national ideological existential one.

West Germany and Japan did fantastic when they were completely deprived of empire. The Marxist theory of Imperialism is utter drivel.
#14916620
Rich wrote:You're a smart and knowledgeable guy, but you keep posting assertions of this sort. Are you telling me there wasn't lethal competition for hunting and fishing grounds amongst hunter gatherers? Bands, Tribes, Chiefdoms, horticultural, ancient empires and Feudal societies have all engaged in lethal competition for limited natural resources.

Indeed they have. Did I claim otherwise?

The value of land agricultural land, oil and mined resources as a percentage of total production has fallen massively over the last centuries. The economics of empire were pretty dubious in the nineteenth century. By 1914 there was zero economic case for third world expansion. In the last hundred years the economic case for empire has only got worse. We intervene in the less developed world for prestige, ideological / humanitarian security concerns, not as a business proposition. Commodity prices were falling in the 1930s. There was no economic rationale for the second world war for any side, aside from the national ideological existential one.

Yet the West's (and Russia's) imperialist adventures continued after the Cold War just as enthusiastically as during it. Why was this? Why was there no 'peace dividend' after the end of the Cold War? After all, there was no further ideological or national existential reason for imperialism after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Or was there...? :eh:

West Germany and Japan did fantastic when they were completely deprived of empire. The Marxist theory of Imperialism is utter drivel.

West Germany and Japan prospered after their defeat in WWII because they became client states of the West (specifically America). They no longer had to fund their national security out of their own pockets, because the Americans were doing all the heavy lifting. In fact the Americans gave them money to fund their economic revival, since they were needed as a bulwark against Bolshevism during the Cold War. This is, of course, one of the advantages of being a client state of an imperium.
#14916622
Rich wrote:You're a smart and knowledgeable guy, but you keep posting assertions of this sort. Are you telling me there wasn't lethal competition for hunting and fishing grounds amongst hunter gatherers? Bands, Tribes, Chiefdoms, horticultural, ancient empires and Feudal societies have all engaged in lethal competition for limited natural resources.

The value of land agricultural land, oil and mined resources as a percentage of total production has fallen massively over the last centuries. The economics of empire were pretty dubious in the nineteenth century. By 1914 there was zero economic case for third world expansion. In the last hundred years the economic case for empire has only got worse. We intervene in the less developed world for prestige, ideological / humanitarian security concerns, not as a business proposition. Commodity prices were falling in the 1930s. There was no economic rationale for the second world war for any side, aside from the national ideological existential one.

West Germany and Japan did fantastic when they were completely deprived of empire. The Marxist theory of Imperialism is utter drivel.


I think your reasons (in bold) can be seen as the excuses capitalists feed the masses. You are both right because people are irrational and are not being directed by a clear agenda. It is more like different forces are attempting to control our irrational stumbling into situations. The chief capitalists are just as ignorant as everyone else, so it is not surprising they may pursue land, resources etc, that it may no longer be rational to do. It is only if you give them more credit than they deserve that you have a conflict.
#14916623
Beren wrote:Is this why you elected Trump?

Ironically, I think it is … Obama worked very hard to present himself as "non-threatening" and to leave a legacy picturing the first black president as honorable and respectable. He did not produce resounding victories (like Bush did). He quietly laid the foundation for defeating ISIS and the Taliban, but garnered no headlines (Bin Laden was his high point?).

Then along comes Trump, calling Obama a "Loser" and touting himself as a consistent winner. He's all razzle dazzle, splash and dash … no one is even close to competing with him on the show biz front. He plays to the rubes, not the "informed voters." After eight years of "sedate" Obama, the public eats it up. Throw in a couple of successful dirty tricks (Comey) and he wins a squeaker.

The impossible happens and no one believes it … I still don't believe it. I want to wake up and find that Hillary Clinton has a boot up Putin's ass, a rope around Mitch McConnell's neck, and is carrying Kim Jong Un's love child.

Zam :hmm:
#14916625
Trump also has a better name, even dogs could memorise it. It's highly recommended to use one-syllable orders while training a dog. You can also chant 'Trump' many more times than 'Obama' in the same period of time.

Edit: The word 'trump' has a meaning too.
Last edited by Beren on 21 May 2018 13:18, edited 1 time in total.
#14916627
Potemkin wrote:Yet the West's (and Russia's) imperialist adventures continued after the Cold War just as enthusiastically as during it.


Your ideological foundation is so wobbly that you can't write two consecutive posts without contradicting yourself. First you claim that Capitalism is the same as Imperialism and then you claim that the Soviets had their own imperialist adventures.

I know you won't admit it because you are so set in your ways, but it is possible for countries to coexist without a destructive imperialist struggle. The EU is such an example. That's undoubtedly why you people hate the EU. It is a living proof that your ideology is utterly worthless.

By using Marxism as a front, you have arranged yourself with all the evils of the Empire. You do the bidding of the Empire by derailing any discussion of its very substantial evil by simple claiming that it is just the normal state of affairs as long as we don't embrace the purity of your ideology. And since we will never reach a state of pure Communism, we just have to put up with imperialism, no matter how destructive that may be.

You make yourself a lackey of the Imperialists by rejecting the fight against imperialism as a futile exercise as long as the unattainable purity of your ideology cannot be attained, which is a convenient way of consolidating imperialism as a means to assure your material well-being at the expense of the have-nots while claiming the moral high-ground by paying lip service to Communism.

Honest imperialists are preferable.
#14916631
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both Chicago Democrats. The attempts to show either as morally superior to Trump just demonstrate how easily you accept the propaganda they feed you. Obama fooled me for a long time also, but at least I finally woke up when he exposed his true self in his last year.
All you have to do is look at Chicago to see what they truly represent.
#14916640
Atlantis wrote:Your ideological foundation is so wobbly that you can't write two consecutive posts without contradicting yourself. First you claim that Capitalism is the same as Imperialism and then you claim that the Soviets had their own imperialist adventures.

Stalin understood that if the Soviet Union was to survive, it had to also engage in the Great Game, along with all the capitalist powers. Basically, Stalin abandoned internationalism in order to save the world's first (and at the time only) socialist state. When the Bolsheviks took power in 1917, one of their first acts was to publish all the Tsarist Russian Empire's secret diplomatic records. Within ten years, they had realised how strategically foolish that had been, and stopped doing that. And by 1939, Stalin was signing secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty. The Soviet Union was not an empire in the traditional or in the capitalist sense - instead of paying tribute to Moscow, the client states of the Soviet Union drew money and resources away from the centre. This is ultimately why Yeltsin cut them loose - "Take as much independence as you can swallow!" he told them.

I know you won't admit it because you are so set in your ways, but it is possible for countries to coexist without a destructive imperialist struggle. The EU is such an example. That's undoubtedly why you people hate the EU. It is a living proof that your ideology is utterly worthless.

The EU exists because the ruling elites of the various nations of Europe have realised that they must put aside their petty differences in order to present a united front if they are to have any hope at all of competing with the world's other hegemonic power blocs. Globalisation (as driven by the capitalist system) and the ruinous effects of two European civil wars (which we call 'World Wars') have forced this upon them. Every other reason they give for it is moralistic claptrap.

By using Marxism as a front, you have arranged yourself with all the evils of the Empire. You do the bidding of the Empire by derailing any discussion of its very substantial evil by simple claiming that it is just the normal state of affairs as long as we don't embrace the purity of your ideology. And since we will never reach a state of pure Communism, we just have to put up with imperialism, no matter how destructive that may be.

But it is the normal state of affairs unless and until our economic system is driven by human need rather than profit. Capitalism drives the bourgeoisie across the world in pursuit of profits, because without profits they cannot survive as capitalists.

You make yourself a lackey of the Imperialists by rejecting the fight against imperialism as a futile exercise as long as the unattainable purity of your ideology cannot be attained, which is a convenient way of consolidating imperialism as a means to assure your material well-being at the expense of the have-nots while claiming the moral high-ground by paying lip service to Communism.

And you make yourself a lackey of the Imperialists by rejecting the fight against imperialism as a futile exercise as long as socialism cannot be attained, which is a convenient way of consolidating imperialism as a means to assure your material well-being at the expense of the have-nots while claiming the moral high-ground by paying lip service to equality and justice.

You see how that works, Atlantis? ;)

From my perspective, you have given up the fight for a just social and economic system, since you believe it to be unattainable. I do not believe communism to be an unattainable goal, and I have not given up the fight. I reject imperialism, which means rejecting capitalism.

Honest imperialists are preferable.

Indeed, Atlantis. Indeed. :D
#14916644
One Degree wrote:Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both Chicago Democrats. The attempts to show either as morally superior to Trump just demonstrate how easily you accept the propaganda they feed you. Obama fooled me for a long time also, but at least I finally woke up when he exposed his true self in his last year.
All you have to do is look at Chicago to see what they truly represent.


What did he do in his last year?
#14916648
daf wrote:What did he do in his last year?


Turned against the police and endorsed Hillary. He started his presidency by refusing to make race an issue and ended up with it being the only issue because that is what the DNC demanded of him. He knew it was wrong for all Americans, but he did it anyway.
#14916651
One Degree wrote:Turned against the police and endorsed Hillary. He started his presidency by refusing to make race an issue and ended up with it being the only issue because that is what the DNC demanded of him. He knew it was wrong for all Americans, but he did it anyway.



He was always race obsessed, but got the right advice to hide it


Hidden photo of Barack Obama with Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan emerges 13 years later
Image?


Dershowitz: I Wouldn't Have Campaigned for Obama If I Knew About Farrakhan Pic

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/27/o ... ut-picture

You should put the full quote I am of the o[…]

Muscovite’s Slaughter of Indigenous People in Alas[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's prom[…]

No, it doesn't. The US also wants to see Hamas top[…]