Saudi
King Warns ISIS "Will Reach Europe In One Month, US In Two"
1
September 2014
As
if the fearmongery and vitriol of UK, Europe and the US were not
enough, the Middle-East's 'allied' leaders are now opining on the
threat of ISIS. As
FOX News reports,
The king of Saudi Arabia has warned that jihadists could target the
United States and Europe if leaders across the globe do not react to
growing terrorist threats as Islamic State militants make advances
across Iraq and Syria."If
neglected, I am certain that after a month they will reach Europe
and, after another month, America," blasted King Abdullah,
adding Cameron-esquely, "they know no humanity." Of
course, this is quote ironic given the Saudi's funding of various
terror groups throughout the region.
The king of Saudi Arabia has warned that jihadists could target the United States and Europe if leaders across the globe do not react to growing terrorist threats as Islamic State militants make advances across Iraq and Syria.
While not mentioning any terrorist groups by name, King Abdullah's statement appeared aimed at drawing Washington and NATO forces into a wider fight against the Islamic State terror organization and its supporters in the region. Saudi Arabia openly backs rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad, but is concerned that the breakaway Al Qaeda group could also turn those very same weapons on the kingdom.
"If neglected, I am certain that after a month they will reach Europe and, after another month, America," he said at a reception for foreign ambassadors Friday.
"These terrorists do not know the name of humanity and you have witnessed them severing heads and giving them to children to walk with in the street," the king said, urging the ambassadors to relay his message directly to their heads of state.
The Islamic State, formerly known as ISIS, has been fighting moderate rebels, other extremists and Assad's forces in Syria for nearly three years. Iraq has faced an onslaught by the Sunni extremists and their supporters since early this year, and the country continues to be roiled by instability.
While providing arms and support to Sunni militants in Syria, Saudi Arabia has denied directly funding or backing the Islamic State group.
...
Saudi Arabia, a major U.S. ally in the region, has taken an increasingly active role in criticizing the Islamic State group. Earlier this month, the country's top cleric described the Islamic State group and Al Qaeda as Islam's No. 1 enemy and said that Muslims have been their first victims. State-backed Saudi clerics who once openly called on citizens to fight in Syria can now face steep punishment and the kingdom has threatened to imprison its citizens who fight in Syria and Iraq.
A decade ago, Al Qaeda militants launched a string of attacks in the kingdom aimed at toppling the monarchy. Saudi officials responded with a massive crackdown that saw many flee to neighboring Yemen. In the time since, the kingdom has not seen any massive attacks, though it has imprisoned suspected militants and sentenced others to death.
*
* *
The
question is - is this an explicit call for US to protect them more...
or else... or just more posturing to stir the populist vote for more
war...?
David
Cameron shelves move to ban British jihadis returning to UK
Political
and legal opposition forces PM to back down on key elements of plan
to counteract Islamic State terrorist threat
1
September 2014
David
Cameron's plan to fight the terrorist threat posed by Islamic State
got off to a stuttering start when he was forced to shelve key
proposals amid legal uncertainty, Liberal Democrat objections, and
even doubts within the security services.
The
prime minister unveiled a package of anti-terror measures in the
Commons on Monday but was not able to include a widely trailed
proposal to prevent British-born citizens returning to the country
from Syria or Iraq if they were suspected of being involved in acts
of terror.
Acknowledging
the legal difficulties in preventing British citizens returning to
the UK, admitting that it might render them stateless, the prime
minister said new measures were still needed to prevent British
jihadis returning.
He
told MPs: "It is abhorrent that people who declare their
allegiance elsewhere can return to the United Kingdom and pose a
threat to our national security.
"We
are clear in principle that what we need is a targeted, discretionary
power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the UK."
But
the prime minister's clear statement of intent was not backed by any
proposals to match the rhetoric of Friday, when he used a Downing
Street press conference to warn of the dangers of the "generational
struggle" posed by the emergence of Islamic State (Isis).
The
difficulties facing Cameron were underlined by the former
Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve, who warned that
removing passports from UK-born citizens returning home would breach
international law and UK common law.
Grieve
said "even taking such powers on a temporary basis is likely to
be a non starter".
It
is thought Grieve gave this advice privately as attorney general last
year when ministers agreed to take powers to remove passports from
naturalised UK citizens that had the prospect of being a citizen of
another state. He said the best course was to prosecute suspected
terrorists in the UK courts.
Cameron
said as many as 500 UK citizens were fighting in Syria or northern
Iraq, representing the single greatest threat to the UK.
"It
absolutely sticks in the craw that someone can go from this country
to Syria, declare jihad, make all sorts of plans to start doing us
damage and then contemplate returning to Britain having declared
their allegiance to another state."
With
the US launching air attacks against Islamic State recently, Cameron
refused to give any firm commitment on UK involvement, saying no such
requests had been received – a formula being used by ministers
until a clearer strategy emerges from Washington or is agreed at the
Nato summit this week in Wales.
But
he signalled some flexibility, when, Cameron said in reference to air
strikes that "we should ask ourselves how we best help those
people on the ground who are doing vital work in countering [Islamic
State]".
He
added that, as in Libya, "the British government must reserve
the right to act immediately and inform the House of Commons
afterwards".
Cameron
was even unable to win unambiguous backing from his Lib Dem partners
for plans to give police powers to force suspected terrorists to
relocate within the UK, amid criticism they amounted to a
watered-down version of the controversial control orders introduced
by Labour but dropped by the coalition.
Lib
Dem sources said they had not definitely signed up to the plans for
relocation, but said they felt a duty to look at the proposal after
it had been recently recommended by the government independent
reviewer of terrorism, David Anderson.
Cameron
said he would go ahead with plans to give UK police the power to
revoke a passport from a UK citizen – a power currently confined to
the home secretary under the royal prerogative.
However,
the power to revoke will last 30 days and be subject to judicial
review. "It will not be possible for a UK policemen to withdraw
a passport at the border on a whim," a Lib Dem source stressed.
All
international airlines operating in the UK will also be required by
statute to hand over information on passengers travelling from the
UK.
The
American-style powers are seen as necessary as some airlines have
been failing to provide information early enough for British
intelligence agencies to prevent a passenger from travelling.
Cameron
added that the government's Challenge programme would be put on a
statutory footing so anyone suspected of being radicalised will be
required to go on a government re-education programme, removing any
voluntary element.
Overall,
the package announced to MPs by Cameron appeared at best incomplete
and certainly less dramatic than suggested when he called a rare
Downing Street press conference on Friday to announce the terror
threat was being raised from substantial to severe for the first time
in three years.
He
also rejected proposals from the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to
criminalise travel to certain individual countries or to change the
criminal standard of proof.
He
said: "The government are clear that it would be wrong to deal
with the gap by fundamentally changing core principles of our
criminal justice system."
But
there were also no signs of a coalition split on the issue, with
neither Liberal Democrat nor Conservative sources eager to turn any
disagreements over civil liberties into a political clash, aware good
will is needed to reach agreement on what they both regard as a new
national security threat.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.