Why should Australians fear from Muslims?

Dec 23, 2007 Read more: Scoop 46,807
About 800 people gathered in Camden, NSW and raised their voice against the plan for an Islamic School to be built in the area. Read more
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#42415 Sep 14, 2013
Neville Thompson wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't it be nice if all combatants returned to their home countries and allow this dispute to be settled in the International Court in the Hague
==
US did not abide to the Geneva Convention, as US labeled them as combatants because they did not wear official Uniforms.
But, the value and philosophy of Geneva Convention actually deals with proper treatment of captured prisoners as humans and people, regardless of what.
However, US did torture a lot of them and some of them had died, while quite so many are unknown with no names. Because of the time length they have been held with no charges, they should return to where they came from, and few did return. However, it was bad.
Aiden

Melbourne, Australia

#42416 Sep 14, 2013
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/pakistan-po...

How many witnesses will she need to get a rape conviction or will she be charged for sex out of marriage MUQ ?
Aiden

Sydney, Australia

#42417 Sep 14, 2013
died of internal bleeding and uterine rupture on her wedding night

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/recent...

Middle Eastern Muslim people are so backward.
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#42418 Sep 14, 2013
Neville Thompson wrote:
Hello MUQ ,what would quantify me to be a prophet ?
You are born too late!!

You MUST have been born BEFORE the door of prophethood was open, not AFTER it is closed!!

There is only Title for all these "New Prophets"....they all are liars!!

I do not know, if you would like this title for you? Would you?
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#42419 Sep 14, 2013
Worst of wrote:
<quoted text>
Indian 'part' muslims like MUQ are the worst of the worst.
They are the jizya of Islam.
No Arab will ever accept an Indian is the same as them before Allah.
No Indian can ever go to an Islamic heaven.
Heaven in Islam is reserved for Arabs (Quran).
Indian Muslims are lost souls, jizya slaves to a pagan belief that rejects them.
They have no real god (Allah is for Arabs only) and no heaven to go to.
I do not at any place, Quran says that Heavens is reserved for Arabs, It never addresses believer as O Arab or O people of Arabia.... it always addresses them as "O you who believe!".

Our prophet , peace be on him said "There is no superiority of an Arab over a non Arab, or a Non Arab over and Arab, nor a red man over black or a black one over read. You all are from Adam and Adam was created from dust".

Can you remember any one saying this 1400 years back? Search the history book!!

PS:

I like you idea, "Indian Muslims are leftover of Jizya"..

That was a "Nice" line.

Leftovers of Jizya, defending Islam!!
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#42420 Sep 14, 2013
-

"It is important for this country to make its people so obsessed with their own
liberal individualism that they do not have time to think about a world larger
than self." -Bell Hooks

"If we are not prepared to think for ourselves, and to make the effort to learn
how to do this well, we will always be in danger of becoming slaves to the ideas
and values of others due to our own ignorance." - William Hughes

"History can come in handy. If you were born yesterday, with no knowledge of the
past, you might easily accept whatever the government tells you. But knowing a
bit of history--while it would not absolutely prove the government was lying in
a given instance--might make you skeptical, lead you to ask questions, make it
more likely that you would find out the truth." - Howard Zinn

"Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea you
have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners.- They
don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want
well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them." - George Carlin

"One of the most important things one can do in life is to brutally question every
single thing you are taught." - Bryant McGill

"Doubt everything. Find your own light.'- Last words of Gotama Buddha, in Theravada tradition

February 15/16, 2013

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#42421 Sep 14, 2013
Rauf lala wrote:
<quoted text>Sheila is not your name? then what is your real name?
It is Sheila, not Sheilaa
Nick

Brisbane, Australia

#42422 Sep 14, 2013
Aiden wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/world-n ews/pakistan-police-say-girl-5 -brutally-raped-in-lahore/stor y-fndir2ev-1226719374685
How many witnesses will she need to get a rape conviction or will she be charged for sex out of marriage MUQ ?
Look MUQ has no time to discuss sensible issues, hes too hung up and consumed with hatred with the Jewish people.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#42423 Sep 14, 2013
Rauf lala wrote:
<quoted text>ask Shielaa
Only Muslims drink it, and I'm not a Muslim, so you would be better qualified surely?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#42424 Sep 14, 2013
Neville Thompson wrote:
Hello MUQ ,what would quantify me to be a prophet ?
Jesus was the last prophet any others who came after him such as Mohammad are false prophets. Read below and see how Mohammad fits the false prophet like a glove

This is what Jesus said:

Matthew 7:15.

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" So then, you will know them by their fruits. "Not everyone who says to Me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. "Many will say to Me on that day,'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them,'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'”

His fruits were murder, torture, stealing, raping, prostitution of women to name just a few. His followers continue his examples today as can be seen by their fruits
MUQ

Jubail, Saudi Arabia

#42425 Sep 14, 2013
NT wrote:
You being such an xspurt on the subject matter .
Which son of Noah did Islam descend from ,Ham or Shem ?
Ans.

I am no expert on any thing. I am just a student of Islam and tell people of the little that I know off.

Islam did not descend from any one!! Islam means "way of life" and way of life does not descend from any one.

They are set of teachings revealed to prophets of God by God.

First human on this earth Adam, was also the first prophet. He taught his children true faith and that was Islam.

Noah was from the progeny of Adam and he also preached Islam to his people.

Then the same message of Islam was preached by so many prophets to different peoples and in different nations.

God chose Abraham as prophet and leader for his progeny and to whomsoever the message could reach.

In Quran we do not have any genealogical tables, but it is mentioned that Abraham descended from Noah (Ch. 37, V 83).

From which son of Noah, Quran does not mention any thing specifically about it.

But it is Bible which says that Abraham descended from Noah thru his son Shem.

Our prophet, peace be on to him, was from progeny of Abraham thru his son Ishmael.

He was last and final prophet in the long chain of prophet hood.

Our prophet also preached the same message of Islam as was preached by all prophets that came before him.

So your question "Is Islam descended from which son of Noah" is confusing and not correct.

I hope I answered your query.

Allah knows best.

JBH

Richmond, Canada

#42426 Sep 14, 2013
+_)_+_)_+
=========
Lessons from Iraq, Libya loom large as diplomats ponder Syrian weapons probe
Video: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reached an agreement Saturday on a framework for Syria to destroy all of its chemical weapons.
By Joby Warrick, Saturday, September 14, 6:32 PM E-mail the writer
^&*()*)__()*&^(
----------
==========

US pursuit of chemical weapons has suffered large damages.
Yet chemical weapons in Middle East had not been proven in the usage of killing a lot of people, but the US bombs and missiles had killed at least few hundreds of thousands people instead in the ME region, in the pursuance of chemical weapons issue, while ending up finding none of WMD in Iraq.
The Iraq damages of US, being the costs of lives, to resources draining, to getting the bad name, are what US gets today in the checking and pursuit of attempting to destroy the WMD in Iraq, as it is doing the same thing to Syria now, like a repeated cycle.
As it is like before as Iraq case, there will be high doubts that US would end up any good about doing the same thing to Syria.
Obama's policies are as Bush clone molded polices, as nothing is new.
Libya also had chemical weapons but hardly used them, yet it said it had destroyed them--the point is that chemical weapons had not been used much and killed much in recent times, but the missiles and bombs had killed lots instead, especially in the matters of chasing chemical weapons.
US suffered damage in Libya in the Obama policy as US embassy was hit while there was another hit to Libya foreign ministry building on another 9/11, just a few days ago. Libya is still impregnated with lots of volatility of terror rebels like those in Syria,that could uprise to explode any time against US as well as the current Libya government.
US policies in the pursuit of chemical weapons ended up nothing good as all bad, while this same thing again to Syria is trying to do it again by Obama, as if US has never learned by repeatedly doing the same thing, to want to have to take MORE DAMAGES--AND THAT is the way of Obama's doing in getting more damages.
They are the US missiles, bombs and drones that have been killing more people of the world, but not chemical weapons.
US technological warfares have not been able to win anything, as Most countries have better defense against US missiles than Iraq.
In other words, no matter how may millions of tons of bombs dropped to a given area, Iraq is the worst, which resulted a few hundreds of thousands lives lost, while other countries would not have such high number dying. Iran, North Korea, and others have better defense systems
But, bombing something without knowing what are there is just insane.
US ground troops always lost, particularly losing to civilians as home-made insurgent bombers in Iraq.
US could not win any warfare in general,no matter how big and large armory it has for soldiers.
Since Obama by saying to strike Syria, women and others in particular in Syria already have practised the exercises and training to face the any hit from US.
Assad says he has no fear of US threat and will defend from US invasion. Syria is all ready to meet US strike.
Obama has dug himself into a corner and big hole, where he started that chemical weapons issue by calling redline.
Obama could not provide solid proof and prove concretely that ASSAD USED SARIN GAS ON THE 8/21 INCIDENT, as that could be a make-up fake as lie so as to device the strike by fraudulence and that is awful US.
IT IS going to be troublesome for Obama if he were to use ground troops, when Assad would not let US in to check.
Syria already signed the treaty (which makes it very difficult for US to say about its chemical weapons), and Assad could say he might destroy them, that US invasion based on unknown and uncertainty if subsequently by using ground troops to get them will be disastrous.

“Free Speech in a Free World ”

Since: May 10

The Beady Slayer.

#42427 Sep 14, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
You are born too late!!
You MUST have been born BEFORE the door of prophethood was open, not AFTER it is closed!!
There is only Title for all these "New Prophets"....they all are liars!!
I do not know, if you would like this title for you? Would you?
God says differently so does that mean you are a liar ?

“Free Speech in a Free World ”

Since: May 10

The Beady Slayer.

#42428 Sep 14, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
I am no expert on any thing. I am just a student of Islam and tell people of the little that I know off.
Islam did not descend from any one!! Islam means "way of life" and way of life does not descend from any one.
They are set of teachings revealed to prophets of God by God.
First human on this earth Adam, was also the first prophet. He taught his children true faith and that was Islam.
Noah was from the progeny of Adam and he also preached Islam to his people.
Then the same message of Islam was preached by so many prophets to different peoples and in different nations.
God chose Abraham as prophet and leader for his progeny and to whomsoever the message could reach.
In Quran we do not have any genealogical tables, but it is mentioned that Abraham descended from Noah (Ch. 37, V 83).
From which son of Noah, Quran does not mention any thing specifically about it.
But it is Bible which says that Abraham descended from Noah thru his son Shem.
Our prophet, peace be on to him, was from progeny of Abraham thru his son Ishmael.
He was last and final prophet in the long chain of prophet hood.
Our prophet also preached the same message of Islam as was preached by all prophets that came before him.
So your question "Is Islam descended from which son of Noah" is confusing and not correct.
I hope I answered your query.
Allah knows best.
Check out where Ishmael came from and who his parents were ?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#42429 Sep 15, 2013
Neville Thompson wrote:
<quoted text>
Check out where Ishmael came from and who his parents were ?
Ishmael was the result of the union of Abraham with the Egyptian called Hagar,Sarai's handmaiden. Even though Ishmael was the first son of Abraham he had no claim on the promise that God spoke of. Abraham did not marry Hagar, she was a concubine nothing more.Legally nothing changed and Hagar did not gain extra rights, nor did she achieve equality with or supplant the authority of Sarah who at that time was barren. That is why she remained under the control of Sarah and not Abraham. It was Sarah that sent Hagar away, Abraham had no say in the matter. Hagar's child would belong to both Sari and Abraham in the event that Sarah could have no children. The fact is she did have a son and he was called Isaac and that is who God stated would be the one with whom He would establish and continue his covenant with.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#42430 Sep 15, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
I am no expert on any thing. I am just a student of Islam and tell people of the little that I know off.
Islam did not descend from any one!! Islam means "way of life" and way of life does not descend from any one.
They are set of teachings revealed to prophets of God by God.
First human on this earth Adam, was also the first prophet. He taught his children true faith and that was Islam.
Noah was from the progeny of Adam and he also preached Islam to his people.
Then the same message of Islam was preached by so many prophets to different peoples and in different nations.
God chose Abraham as prophet and leader for his progeny and to whomsoever the message could reach.
In Quran we do not have any genealogical tables, but it is mentioned that Abraham descended from Noah (Ch. 37, V 83).
From which son of Noah, Quran does not mention any thing specifically about it.
But it is Bible which says that Abraham descended from Noah thru his son Shem.
Our prophet, peace be on to him, was from progeny of Abraham thru his son Ishmael.
He was last and final prophet in the long chain of prophet hood.
Our prophet also preached the same message of Islam as was preached by all prophets that came before him.
So your question "Is Islam descended from which son of Noah" is confusing and not correct.
I hope I answered your query.
Allah knows best.
Islam is a counterfeit ideology that used scripture from the torah and elsewhere to try and legitimize and promote its false teachings.NONE OF THE PROPHETS BEFORE MUHAMMAD TAUGHT THE FALSE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM. ISLAM DID NOT EVEN COME INTO EXISTENCE UNTIL THE 6TH CENTURY AD!!!!!!!!!!

Adam was no more a Muslim than I am and he certainly did not teach his descendents Islam. The koran tries to use the prophets of the bible to legitimize its own teachings but unfortunately all it has on offer is one false prophet who was the antitheisis of what God taught through his prophets in the bible. Neither was Ishmael a prophet, only in MUGS dreams.
I brilliant or what LLOL

Camperdown, Australia

#42431 Sep 15, 2013
What myself, MUQ and many other fellow muslims have been saying for years is now being said in mainstream media even in jew controlled pig munching societies, LLOL,LLOL,LLOL, What will you backward pesants Bogans do when the truth catches up with you.....LLOL,LLOL,LLOL, you idiots are too stupid to even eat your hearts out... LLOL read you stupid Bogan Brigade...LLOL,LLOL,LLOL

WEEKEND EDITION SEPTEMBER 13-15, 2013

No More War for Israel?

The People Against the 800 Pound Gorilla
by JEAN BRICMONT and DIANA JOHNSTONE

The past ten days have seen what could be the start of an historic turning point away from endless war in the Middle East. Public opinion in the United States, in harmony with the majority of people in the world, has clearly rejected U.S. military intervention in Syria.

But for this turn away from war to be complete and lasting, greater awareness is needed of the forces that have been pushing the United States into these wars, and will surely continue to do so until they are clearly and openly rejected.

An American friend who knows Washington well recently told us that “everybody” there knows that, as far as the drive to war with Syria is concerned, it is Israel that directs U.S. policy. Why then, we replied, don’t opponents of war say it out loud, since, if the American public knew that, support for the war would collapse? Of course, we knew the answer to that question. They are afraid to say all they know, because if you blame the pro-Israel lobby, you are branded an anti-Semite in the media and your career is destroyed.

One who had that experience is James Abourezk, former Senator from South Dakota, who has testified:“I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear – fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress–at least when I served there – have any affection for Israel or for its lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I’ve heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they’re pushed around by the lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the lobby’s animosity by making their feelings public.”&#8232;Abourezk added :“The only exceptions to that rule are the feelings of Jewish members, who, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.”[1]

Since we do not have to run for Congress, we feel free to take a close look at that highly delicate question. First, we’ll review the evidence for the crucial role of the pro-Israel lobby, then we’ll discuss some objections.

For evidence, it should be enough to quote some recent headlines from the American and Israeli press.

First, according to the Times of Israel (not exactly an anti-Zionist rag):“Israel intelligence seen as central to U.S. case against Syria.”[2](Perhaps the fact that it is “central” also explains why it is so dubious[3].)

Then, in Haaretz[4]:“AIPAC to deploy hundreds of lobbyists to push for Syria action”. Or, in U.S. News and World Report[5]:“Pro-Israel lobby Seeks to Turn Tide on Syria Debate in Congress”. According to Bloomberg[6]:“Adelson New Obama Ally as Jewish Groups Back Syria Strike”. The worst enemies of Obama become his allies, provided he does what “Jewish groups” want. Even rabbis enter the dance: according to the Times of Israel[7],“U.S. rabbis urge Congress to back Obama on Syria”.
I brilliant or what LLOL

Camperdown, Australia

#42432 Sep 15, 2013
The New York Times explained some of the logic behind the pressure:“Administration officials said the influential pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Mr. Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel.… One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called AIPAC ‘the 800-pound gorilla in the room,’ and said its allies in Congress had to be saying,‘If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line’ against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons,‘we’re in trouble’.”

Even more interesting, this part of the story was deleted by the New York Times, according to M.J. Rosenberg[8], which is consistent with the fact that the lobby prefers to act discreetly.

Now, to the objections:

There are indeed forces other than the Israel lobby pushing for war. It is true that some neighboring countries like Saudi Arabia or Turkey also want to destroy Syria, for their own reasons. But they have nowhere near the political influence on the United States of the Israel lobby. If Saudi princes use their money to try to corrupt a few U.S. politicians, that can easily be denounced as interference by a foreign power in the internal affairs of the United States. But no similar charge can be raised against Israeli influence because of the golden gag rule: any mention of such influence can be immediately denounced as a typical anti-Semitic slur against a nonexistent “Jewish power”. Referring to the perfectly obvious, public activities of the Israel lobby may even be likened to peddling a “conspiracy theory”.

But many of our friends insist that every war is driven by economic interests. Isn’t this latest war to be waged because big bad capitalists want to exploit Syrian gas, or use Syrian territory for a gas pipeline, or open up the Syrian economy to foreign investments?

There is a widespread tendency, shared by much of the left, especially among people who think of themselves as Marxists (Marx himself was far more nuanced on this issue), to think that wars must be due to cynically rational calculations by capitalists. If this were so, these wars “for oil” might be seen as “in the national interest”. But this view sees “capitalism” as a unified actor issuing orders to obedient politicians on the basis of careful calculations. As Bertrand Russell put it, this putative rationality ignores “the ocean of human folly upon which the fragile barque of human reason insecurely floats”. Wars have been waged for all kinds of non-economic reasons, such as religion or revenge, or simply to display power.
I brilliant or what LLOL

Camperdown, Australia

#42433 Sep 15, 2013
People who think that capitalists want wars to make profits should spend time observing the board of directors of any big corporation: capitalists need stability, not chaos, and the recent wars only bring more chaos. American capitalists are making fortunes in China and Vietnam now that there is peace between the U.S. and those countries, which was not possible during hostilities. As for the argument that they need wars to loot resources, one may observe that the U.S. is buying oil from Iraq now, and so does China, but China did not have to ruin itself in a costly war. Like Iraq, Iran or Syria are perfectly willing to sell their resources, and it is the political embargoes imposed by the U.S. that prevent such trade. As for the “war for oil” thesis in the case of Libya, the Guardian recently reported that “Libya is facing its most critical moment since the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi with armed groups blockading oil fields and terminals, choking output to a 10th of normal levels and threatening economic disaster.”[9]As for Iraq, Stephen Sniegoski has shown, in The Transparent Cabal, The Neoconsevative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, that the war was only due to the neoconservatives and that the oil companies had no desire whatsoever to go to war. Indeed, there is no evidence of an “oil lobby” sending its agents to urge Members of Congress to vote for war, as AIPAC is doing.

And how does one explain that many of the most determined opponents of war are found on the right of the political spectrum? Do the Tea Party, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimundo and antiwar.com , Paul Craig Roberts, among others, fail to see the wonderful profits to be made by capitalists in a devastated Syria?

The fact is that in the post-colonial period, wherever profits can be made through war, they can be made much more reliably in peaceful conditions, and most capitalists seem to have understood that. There is no need to conquer countries in order to purchase their resources, invest in their economies or sell them our products. Most countries are in fact eager for legitimate trade.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the huge military-industrial complex (MIC) benefits from wars. Doesn’t the MIC need wars to maintain the lifeblood of military appropriations? Here the matter is complex. The MIC benefits above all from various hyped-up threats of war, most notably the Soviet threat during the Cold War, which kept the credits and contracts flowing through the Pentagon. But long, botched wars such as in Afghanistan or Iraq tend to give war a bad name, are economically ruinous and lead to questioning the need for the huge U.S. military. The MIC doesn’t need another one in Syria. Many military officers are openly hostile to mounting at attack against Syria.

The interests that profit directly from recent U.S. wars – and not from mere “threats”– are very few. They are above all the giant construction firms, Bechtel, Halliburton and their subsidiaries, which, through their connections with officials such as Dick Cheney, win contracts to build U.S. military bases abroad and sometimes to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by the U.S. Air Force. This amounts to a recycling of American taxpayers’ money, which in no way “profits” the United States, or American capitalism in general; besides, those construction firms are not big compared to major U.S. corporations. These profiteers could never pose as a “justification” for wars, but are the mere vultures feeding off conflicts.
I brilliant or what LLOL

Camperdown, Australia

#42434 Sep 15, 2013
The basic responsibility for war of the U.S. military-industrial complex is simply that it is there. And as Madeleine Albright famously said,“what is the use of having that splendid military if we don’t use it?” In fact, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union (and indeed arguably ever since the end of World War II), there is no obviously good reason to use it, and it might well be dismantled and resources redirected toward modernizing U.S. infrastructure and other useful and profitable activities. However, an intellectual industry called “think tanks” has developed in Washington devoted to justifying the 45
People on the left are not wrong in supposing that Washington would want to defend “American geo-strategic interests”. Those certainly exist, and are a proper object of controversy. But the crucial question here is whether support for Israeli policy aims in the Middle East is among them. Indeed, there is a sector of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that promotes an aggressive global foreign policy that amounts to a sort of world conquest, with U.S. military bases and military exercises surrounding Russia and China, as if in preparation for some final showdown. But the fact is that the most active advocates of this aggressive policy are the pro-Israel neoconservatives of the Project for the New American Century that pushed the Bush II presidency into war against Iraq, and now, as the Foreign Policy Initiative, are pushing Obama toward war against Syria. Their general line is that U.S. and Israeli interests are identical, and that U.S. world domination is good, or even necessary, for Israel. Such close identification with Israel has caused the United States to be intensely hated throughout the Muslim world, which is not good for the United States in the long run.
Perhaps because genuine, material or economic U.S. interests in going to war are so hard to find, the emphasis has shifted in the past decade to alleged “moral” concerns, such as “the responsibility to protect”, packaged with a catchy brand name,“R2P”. Today, the strongest advocates of going to war are the various humanitarian imperialists or liberal interventionist, who argue on the basis of R2P, or “justice for victims”, or alleged “genocide prevention”.
There is a large overlap between humanitarian interventionism and support for Israel. In France Bernard Kouchner, who first invented and promoted the concept of the “right to intervene”, stated in a recent interview that “Israel is like no other country. It is the result of the terrifying massacre of the Holocaust.” It is therefore “our duty” to protect it. Bernard-Henry Lévy prodded the French government to start the war against Libya, making no secret that he considered he was acting as a Jew for the interests of Israel; he is now the foremost and fiercest advocate of bombing Syria. In both France and the United States, advocates of “humanitarian” intervention justify bombing Syria by referring to the Holocaust in the past and to a hypothetical, and totally unsubstantiated, intention by Iran to risk national suicide by attacking Israel in the future.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Terrorism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Kiev accused of moving artillery in violation o... 1 hr Pro Ukraine 45
News Mentally stable at 38,000 feet: Can you trust y... 4 hr Ken 3
News Egypt president welcomes return of US military aid 10 hr Uli 1
News We'll murder police, says Real IRA (Apr '11) 15 hr James 234
News Unmasking of 'Jihadi John' as a London lad shoc... Tue Polo 18
News Ukraine Psych Wards Prepare For PTSD Mar 28 humanspirit 3
News The radicalization of John Maguire Mar 28 Tim 3
More from around the web