The Syrian Arab Army and Iraqi Armed Forces have been making substantial gains against Takfiri terrorist groups, and with Daesh defeated in respect of being anything resembling a military unit, many of the European born terrorists who have illegally entered Syria and Iraq are now stuck in a legal no-man’s land. While some will try to cross into other major Daesh frontiers whether Afghanistan to the east or Libya to the west, a number may well try to re-enter European countries with their old passports. As joining the so-called “Islamic State” does not constitute a legally recognised renunciation of European citizenship, many European countries are at a loss with what to do with them, even though the answer is simple.
The US wants European countries to take their home grown Daesh terrorists back as Washington has bigger proverbial fish to fry. However, many EU countries, including the UK have said they would prefer not to receive their home grown terrorists. While countries like Britain have said that its home grown Daesh are no longer protected by UK law, this legal argument is flimsy at best.
There are only three realistic and ethical options for how to deal with European Daesh:
1. Allow Syria or Iraq to try them according to domestic laws as their crimes against humanity took place in Syrian/Iraqi jurisdiction.
2. Work with the UN to establish a Nuremburg style tribunal for European Daesh, one that would allow the death penalty.
3. Try European Daesh in European criminal courts, with a possible agreement to reintroduce the death penalty due to the special circumstance of the crimes in question.
I would personally be happy with any of these options provided the trial was speedy and executions were able to take place shortly after sentencing.
But there is a reason that European countries are scared to death about putting their home grown Daesh members on trial, irrespective of the venue. There is a high likelihood, verging on a certainty, that many such would-be defendants would testify under oath about how western governments helped provide them safe passage to Syria and Iraq while also providing them with money, arms and drugs.
In 2017, after a Libyan living in the UK set off a large bomb during a crowded concert, many people began revisiting stories of how the UK intelligence agency MI5 provided safe passage to and from Libya for UK residents and citizens with ties to the north African country. In all cases, these individuals did not go to Libya to fight for the legitimate government, but they went to fight for al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups. Further reports showed how many of the al-Qaeda members were even given special military training by the UK’s elite SAS units.
With the wars in Syria and Iraq even larger than the NATO war on Libya, the numbers of European terrorists sent to the Levant with the consent and aid of western governments is even larger. This is clearly something that is a source of embarrassment to western governments, whose own citizens typically loath terrorist groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda. Hence, there is a clear incentive for such governments to hush up their complicity in fomenting terrorism in the Middle East, often through the use of its own state-radicalised citizens.
If put on trial in a court of law, such individuals would almost certainly tell the entire story of how their own western governments encouraged and aided them in getting to the Middle East where they committed crimes against humanity. Thus, a trial of individual western born terrorists, would actually turn into a trial against the western governments who are complicit in the crimes against humanity that their Takfiri citizens commit in the Middle East and Africa.
Therefore, next time a European official claims that they have no intention of receiving their home grown terrorists back, this must be illustrated as the real reason behind such proposed policies. This is also the reason that countries like Sweden and Canada have embarked on programs to “reintegrate former” terrorists back into western societies. While such “integration” based policies are often lambasted as extreme political correctness, they are nothing of the sort. They are a good old fashioned bribe whereby officials in Canada and Sweden will tell their citizens returning from the Middle East that in exchange for free housing, no traditional criminal record, government welfare money and comfortable “rehabilitation programmes”, they will be gagged from speaking out about how their own governments and allied governments, including “Israel” helped them to better commit their atrocities against the people of Syria, Libya and Iraq.
There is nothing righteous about western governments for refusing to accept and try their home grown terrorists, nor is there anything ‘kind and gentle’ about so-called rehabilitation programmes. It is all part of a broader effort to keep the truth about western complicity in terrorism hidden from the public eye.