I bet you they’re considering just that. Although, it could also be analogous to IRA boosters and fundraisers in the U.S.: supportive of a terrorist organization, yes, but also non-violent. If that makes sense. That is, if they really only did fund raising and not really attack planning.

Agreed – it is as if terrorists have their own version of the ‘harmony of interests’, in which groups originally acting alone and out of self-interest come to recognize the benefits of co-operation and shared responsibilities. However, I think this is far from the Islamist ‘Grand Alliance’ proposed by the more extreme GWoT boosters.

However, I often wonder that if terrorists are unlikely to score significant hits against the regime in Uzbekistan, will they therefore focus their attention abroad e.g. Uzbekistani embassies, and perhaps – more controversially – governments perceived to be friendly towards the Karimov regime? I wouldn’t be surprised if this was something European police forces and security analysts are considering.

More interesting, I think, is how this further cements the interconnectedness of the terrorism problem. The goings-on in Pakistan’s tribal areas have implications not just for Afghanistan, but for the rest of Central Asia and Europe, too.

The arrests also suit the agenda of those who claim that Europe is an Islamist free-for-all where theocratic nutters are allowed to wander around willy-nilly shaking the bucket for terrorists. This is a popular line spouted by autocratic regimes who are none to fond of domestic opposition, especially the Islamist kind.

Moreover, there are also questions to be raised about to what extent these arrests are the product of EU-Uzbekistan cooperation and, if these suspects were not actually involved in plotting terrorist attacks, and nor were the funds being raised to support terrorist attacks, why they were arrested?

One of the accusations made by the Uzbekistani government against the murdered journalist Alisher Saipov was that he was channelling funds for the IMU.