In Canada, the terrorism spectre in the wake of British jihadists swelling the ranks of (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) Isil has already been acknowledged. Writes the Toronto Sun, “On Friday, the United Kingdom raised their terror threat level from ‘substantial’ to ‘severe’. Home Secretary Theresa May explained this ‘is related to developments in Syria and Iraq where terrorist groups are planning attacks against the West. May ended her statement by calling on the public to be vigilant and report any suspicious activity to the police’.”
Canadians, says the editorial, should do the same. “We know intelligence officials are monitoring dozens of Canadians fighting jihad abroad and dozens more who have since returned. These individuals are very serious security risks. Who knows what they’re planning and when they will act?” It believes its vital the West keeps bombing ISIL’s arsenal. “But that won’t protect us from homegrown attacks or extremists who return from abroad. And police can’t intervene if they don’t first discover who the troublemakers are. Vigilance is needed,” it concludes.
On the Australian continent, the coalition of western powers to combat Isil’s threat is drawing contrary views. Australia’s Courier Mail believes the ramping up of Australia’s involvement in a new war in the Middle East is unfortunate, but the right thing to do. It writes: “The barbarism and inhumanity of Isil jihadists must be stopped. These people [Isil] are animals. They are hell-bent on forging an Islamic caliphate without borders. They are a major threat to world peace. It is incumbent upon nations like the United States, UK and Australia to thwart this threat. Of course, it now raises the homegrown threat of terrorism. Britain raised the threat of international terrorism to ‘severe’, indicating a terrorist attack is highly likely but not imminent.”
On the other hand, Australia’s The Age has a diametrically opposing view of the country’s involvement in the West’s conflict with Isil. In a recent editorial, it says, “...It has to be asked how and when the Isil will be crushed. The people of Iraq and Syria have lived through generations of terror and upheaval under brutal dictators. They have endured decades of war. Now their homelands are being raided by lawless thugs.”
‘Competing political factions’
The US, it believes, is placing much faith in the ability of Iraq’s new Prime Minister, Haider Al Abadi, “to unite Iraq’s competing political factions and form stronger military alliances with the autonomous Kurdish state in Iraq’s north. But that will not be enough; the United States must continue its air strikes to halt, wherever possible, the advance of the militants”.
In the UK, where the terrorism alert has been raised high, the Sunday Times takes a sombre view of things. Its editorial says: “On Friday, the government raised the threat level in this country from ‘substantial’ to ‘severe’ because of the danger posed by Isil and British-born Isil terrorists returning here.
In the US, the Washington Post is searing of Barack Obama’s role in the Isil crisis. The Post writes: “[US] Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. says the threat Isil poses is ‘in some ways ... more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general’, it’s not because he is a warmonger or an alarmist. He’s describing the world as he sees it. When Obama refuses to acknowledge the reality, allies naturally wonder whether he will also refuse to respond to it.” And this, says the Post, is, “in the end, the most disturbing aspect of Obama’s performance. Throughout his presidency, he has excelled at explaining what the United States cannot do and cannot afford, and his remarks Thursday were no exception.”
It’s time, the editorial says, Obama started emphasising what the US can do instead of what it cannot.
