‘ISIS terror threat was created by previous interventions’

The anti-ISIS campaign launched by the West in the Middle East has created a humanitarian chaos, while its real goals and consequences remain obscure, Lindsey German from Stop the War coalition told RT.

RT: Jihadists disguised as refugees – does that seem like a viable scenario to you?

Lindsey German: Not really. I think it is one of the many, many different stories supposedly emanating from Western intelligence which we have to take with a very big pinch of salt.

So there is an absolutely huge problem of refugees coming from Syria and Libya at the moment into Europe. They are desperate to escape from the dreadful conditions in the wars there. And they are putting themselves in great danger to get to Europe.

I think we should have a much more humane approach to these refugees and allow them to come in. After all, we have been intervening in their worlds. But the idea that there are many jihadists who are disguised as refugees is simply not the case.

At the moment, ISIS is concerned with fighting within the Middle East, the other groups in Libya are concerned with fighting within the Middle East. That is where they will stay for the moment.

READ MORE:Trojan horse: ISIS militants come to Europe disguised as refugees, US intel sources claim

Now of course as we have long said, these airstrikes, the previous interventions, have created much greater terrorism and a much greater threat of terrorism in Europe and elsewhere over the past decade or so. So it wouldn`t be so surprising if there were terrorist attacks. T

his is a sort of scary story which seems to me [is] restrict[ing] the movement of Syrian refugees to make it harder for them to enter Europe. We are also of course talking about people who have British passports or maybe passports from other countries in the European Union. At the moment, it is quite illegal to restrict them from coming back.

So we need to look for a political solution rather than tightening immigration control yet again.

RT: As we've been reporting, Islamic State militants are now fighting Kurdish militias in the city of Kobani in Syria. Western airstrikes haven't prevented them from entering the city, so how effective is the bombing campaign?

LG: I think we have to be very, very skeptical about the bombing campaign. I am totally opposed to it, anyway. Every single instance we have had of airstrikes in previous wars like in Libya has created a worse humanitarian disaster than the one we were supposed to solve.

If you look at this particular case, it is absolutely clear: either they are not particularly serious about defending the Kurds and supporting the Kurds against ISIS, which is what many people – including many Kurds – think, or they don`t seem to be capable of doing anything.

That makes you wonder even more: what is the point of these airstrikes which have killed a whole number of civilians but don`t seem to be able to deal with the problem? And I think one of the things happening is that we have been set up for an extension of the war to include ground, for example to include British airstrikes in Syria, both of which are very much opposed.

The situation in Kobani is an absolute tragedy. But this is one where we have to take a lot of responsibility for the Western governments that supported ISIS in the past.

RT: Now that jihadists in Syria are approaching the border with Turkey, do you expect Ankara to get involved as they get closer to that Turkish area?

LG: I think that Ankara has a great deal of responsibility for having a given support to ISIS in the past; they probably will have to get involved. It seems not a lot of their opposition is aimed at the Kurds. And Kurds are suffering again in this situation.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.