(Source: evolve-vandalism, via fatimaaa-aliii)
“I believe that there will be ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those who do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the system of exploitation. I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don’t think it will be based on the color of the skin.” — Malcolm X (via followaden)
(via arielnietzsche)
18 year old Palestinian, Saleh Zoughair, shot dead in Hebron by the IOF. There are conflicting reports that he is either dead or in hospital in a critical condition. The IOF is claiming he tried to attack a soldier.
(Source: jakoburnian, via lifeisliterallylimited)
(via egyptianmuslima4life)
What the fuck has #Occupy done so far? -
(Source: amodernmanifesto)
Qadomem, West Bank: Palestinian protesters throw stones at Israeli troops during clashes at a protest against a Jewish settlement.
(Source: antisocial-socialist, via themindislimitless)
(Source: erosum)
Homeland Battlefield Act Portion Found Unconstitutional By New York Judge
Citing a threat to journalists and scholars, a judge on Wednesday struck down as unconstitutional a portion of a law giving the government wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan said in a written ruling that a single page of the law has a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights” for journalists and others. She cited testimony by journalists that they feared their association with certain individuals overseas could result in their arrest because a provision of the law subjects anyone who “substantially” or “directly” provides “support” to forces such as al-Qaida or the Taliban can be detained indefinitely. She said the wording was too vague and encouraged Congress to change it.
“An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so,” the judge said.
She called the fears of journalists in particular real and reasonable.
The ruling came in a lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of journalists, scholars and others. Forrest cited the vague nature of the law as it pertains to journalists and the government’s inability to provide assurances that the specific conduct at issue would not subject plaintiffs to prosecution and detention.
The National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in December, allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism.
The lawsuit was filed two weeks later by a group of writers and activists, including Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Christopher Hedges, who testified that the vagueness of the law left him “constantly second-guessing what or what not constitutes terrorist activity under this legislation because it’s so amorphous.”
A message left Wednesday with a spokeswoman for federal prosecutors was not immediately returned.
Bruce Afran, a lawyer for seven individuals and one organization that brought the lawsuit, called the ruling a “great victory for free speech.”
(via occupyallstreets)
May 19: Birthday of Malcolm X and Ho Chi Minh, two great revolutionary fighters for social justice and national liberation.
(Source: fuckyeahmarxismleninism)
[video]
The Obama administration approved an additional $70 million for an Israeli missile defense program, also known as the “Iron Dome.”
…on top of the $200 million already set aside for Israel’s missile defense.
…..and on top of the $3 billion in U.S. military annual aid.
Meanwhile in the U.S., schools are being closed, student debt has surpassed $1 trillion this year, thousands of homes are being foreclosed, 50 million Americans still don’t have health insurance & the list goes on.
Instead, billions are going to Israel for weapons & tanks to terrorize Palestinians, destroy their homes, hospitals & schools, & imprison them without any formal charge.
(via changemynamecozimparanoid)
Russia Is Massing Troops On Iran's Northern Border And Waiting For A Western Attack -
The Russian military anticipates that an attack will occur on Iran by the summer and has developed an action plan to move Russian troops through neighboring Georgia to stage in Armenia, which borders on the Islamic republic, according to informed Russian sources.
Russian Security Council head Viktor Ozerov said that Russian General Military Headquarters has prepared an action plan in the event of an attack on Iran.
Dmitry Rogozin, who recently was the Russian ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, warned against an attack on Iran.
“Iran is our neighbor,” Rogozin said. “If Iran is involved in any military action, it’s a direct threat to our security.” Rogozin now is the deputy Russian prime minister and is regarded as anti-Western. He oversees Russia’s defense sector.
Russian Defense Ministry sources say that the Russian military doesn’t believe that Israel has sufficient military assets to defeat Iranian defenses and further believes that U.S. military action will be necessary.
The implication of preparing to move Russian troops not only is to protect its own vital regional interests but possibly to assist Iran in the event of such an attack. Sources add that a Russian military buildup in the region could result in the Russian military potentially engaging Israeli forces, U.S. forces, or both.
Informed sources say that the Russians have warned of “unpredictable consequences” in the event Iran is attacked, with some Russians saying that the Russian military will take part in the possible war because it would threaten its vital interests in the region.
(Source: Business Insider)
[video]
(via amodernmanifesto)
How Many Innocent Civilians Did NATO Kill in Libya? -
When the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) meets next week at a summit in Chicago, expect a lot of self-congratulatory rhetoric about the alliance’s bombing campaign in Libya last year. Backed by a U.N. Security Council mandate, NATO charged in, citing its “responsibility to protect” civilians threatened by the bloody rampages of the late Libyan tyrant Muammar Gaddafi.
The near 10,000 sorties launched by NATO strike craft helped push back Gaddafi’s forces; targeted attacks on the regime’s arsenals and defenses allowed rebel fighters on the ground to eventually sweep into Tripoli and bring down Gaddafi. Not long thereafter, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron were greeted raucously as heroes in Tripoli and Benghazi.
With the endgame in Afghanistan dragging along and financial woes dogging many NATO member states, the relative success of the Libya mission lets the grand old alliance feel good about itself. But then read this question posed recently by a Libyan: “I just need an answer from NATO: Why did you destroy my home and kill my family?”
That quote, attributed to Faiz Fathi Jfara from the town of Bani Walid, appears in a Human Rights Watch report released this week titled “Unacknowledged Deaths.” The report details eight specific incidents where at least 72 Libyan civilians died as the result of NATO’s bombing campaign. A third of the victims were children under the age of 18. HRW researchers found the remnants of a laser-guided missile in the ruins of the Jfara family compound, where five members of the family, including a nine-year-old girl, were killed when bombs fell on Aug. 30. NATO claims it struck a “major command and control node” used by Gaddafi’s forces.
As the report stresses, NATO indeed did take significant measures to limit civilian casualties during its operations in Libya. And the Gaddafi regime did play up and, on occasion, stage incidents of collateral damage as last-gasp propaganda for their flagging war effort. In response to HRW’s report, NATO issued a statement, excerpted below, stressing the care it took to safeguard civilian life:
This was the first air campaign in history where only precision-guided munitions were used. NATO approached each individual targeting decision with extraordinary caution. We had solid intelligence and a very strict target selection process. The day of the week, time of day or night, or even the direction of attack were carefully considered to minimise any risk of civilian casualties. We conducted 9,700 strike sorties and dropped over 7,700 precision bombs, but no target was approved or struck if we had any reason to believe that civilians would be at risk. Whenever possible, we used the weapon with the smallest yield to avoid unnecessary harm or damage. In some cases, as many as 50 hours of airborne video observation was conducted and analysed before a strike was authorised. Hundreds of possible strikes were aborted at the last moment due to the perceived possibility of a civilian presence.
Yet, while expressing regret for loss of civilian life, NATO has, according to HRW, so far “failed to acknowledge these casualties or examine how and why they occurred.” The New York-based rights group is now urging for proper investigations into these eight separate incidents and called for “prompt and suitable compensation” for the victims’ families. The worst case documented by HRW took place in the small village of Majer, south of the bitterly contested city of Zlitan. On Aug. 8, a series of NATO bombs fell on a compound here that, according to witnesses and residents, was occupied by civilians escaping the shelling and street fighting ravaging larger cities nearby. Their sanctuary proved short-lived—according the HRW, the NATO bombing killed 34 people. The report quotes one of the survivors: “The house was full of people who fled the war. All of them were my relatives… We heard the sound of bombing and the electricity went of… When I got outside, we started looking for the bodies.”
When pressed recently by HRW, NATO claimed that the Majer compounds were “legitimate military targets,” but they have not provided evidence to show for it beyond repeated insistences that “credible allegations” were investigated. But beyond NATO’s worrying reticence to directly account for these supposed massacres, the larger, simpler truth here is that, in war, collateral damage is inevitable—no matter the humanitarian pretensions of the combatants.
And it’s not just restricted to the calamities wrought by a wayward missile. Rights groups faulted NATO in the deaths of some 62 refugees fleeing the war in Libya last May—repeated distress calls from their ship, which was cast adrift in Mediterranean, went unheeded by nearby NATO vessels. Dozens onboard died of thirst and starvation. The aftermath of NATO’s campaign has proved deadly as well: after NATO sorties sent Gaddafi forces into retreat, the dictator’s vast caches of arms were opened up and emptied. Advanced weaponry from Libya has found its way to Mali, where an ethnic insurgency twinned with extremist, al-Qaeda-linked militias has plunged one of Africa’s most stable democracies into chaos. Yes, NATO should feel pleased about bringing to an end the career of one of the world’s most macabre and quixotic tyrants. But, as its heads of state gather in Chicago next week, the legacy of Libya ought to offer a moment of pause, not applause.