#afghanistan pakistan terrorists | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mariacallous · 3 months ago

Text

It’s telling that the first question I saw raised in the media after Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi was killed when his helicopter crashed in the country’s mountainous northeast on his return from Azerbaijan in May was whether the United States had a hand in it. In that same regard, among the questions raised concerning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent travel to Pyongyang, apart from its impact on the simmering tensions across Asia, was what opportunities his willingness to venture farther from the Kremlin offers. Namely, should the United States and its allies seek to depose Putin by enabling a coup in his absence, or assassinating him during such travels? The answer lies in assessing the risk versus gain.

What would be gained by killing Putin? If the bar was juxtaposing the status quo with the consequences of Putin’s violent removal, would Russia’s threat to the United States and its allies be degraded? Would Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and cease posing a threat to NATO allies in the Baltics and Eastern Europe? Or might Russian intentions become even more hostile and less predictable? Despite Putin’s obsession with intrigue, denial and deception, and smoke and mirrors, he’s fairly predictable. Indeed, the United States, with Britain leaning in the same direction, was the exception among its NATO allies, not to mention Ukraine itself, in forecasting with high confidence Putin’s plans to attack.

Would the United States do it? The record shows that the U.S. sanctioned violence in sponsoring the overthrow of democratically elected antagonist regimes in Iran in 1953 and Chile in 1973, while the Church committee investigations documented multiple CIA attempts to assassinate Cuba’s Fidel Castro.

More recently, the United States made no pretense in concealing its hand in killing Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force Commander Qassem Suleimani in January 2020, an action that historic precedent would suggest was an act of war. Since 9/11, U.S. counterterrorism strategy has in practice been predicated on assassination. The mantra “find, fix, finish” is the other euphemism for preemptively hunting down and killing terrorists abroad before they might strike the U.S. homeland.

Left: Iranians tear up a U.S. flag during a demonstration following the killing of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force Gen. Qassem Suleimani, in Tehran on Jan. 3, 2020. Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images Right: The statue of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is toppled at al-Fardous square in Baghdad, Iraq, on April 9, 2003. Wathiq Khuzaie /Getty Images

While these episodes collectively demonstrate the U.S. government’s willingness to undertake consequential, lethal actions in the name of national security, when separated from transnational terrorist targets, only the strike against Suleimani occurred while he was abroad. Operations to depose Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran, Salvador Allende in Chile, and Castro in Cuba depended rather on internal elements to facilitate the plots.

Apart from these episodes and a possible hand in others, U.S. governments have arguably favored the status quo of a predictable adversary. Regime change has not worked out well for U.S. interests. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was no small factor in bringing about the Arab Spring, with effects that continue to reverberate across the Middle East as reflected by unresolved civil wars in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, as well as ongoing political instability in Egypt and Tunisia.

The U.S. occupation of Iraq also facilitated the rise of the Islamic State. And the Taliban ultimately outlasted the United States in Afghanistan by returning to power despite 20 years of American blood and treasure, and they now give sanctuary to insurgent groups threatening Pakistan, Iran, its Central Asian neighbors, and China.

The inclination to accept the known status quo is further strengthened when that country is armed with nuclear weapons. As regards Russia, even under the most ideal circumstances in which the U.S. government could remove Putin and conceal its hand in doing so, how confident is Washington that a stable and less hostile leadership would succeed him?

In Russia, like most autocracies, power rests with those who control the nation’s instruments of power—primarily the guns, but likewise the money, infrastructure, natural resources, connections, and knowledge of where the skeletons are to be found. That power is currently concentrated within a small circle of septuagenarians, almost all of whom have long ties to Putin, the Cold War-era KGB, and St. Petersburg. The Russian Armed Forces might have the numbers in terms of troops and tools, but under Putin, as it was in Soviet days, they are kept on a tight leash and closely monitored, with little discretionary authority for drawing weapons or coming out of their garrisons.

The three organizations most capable of moving on Putin and the Kremlin are the Federal Security Service, or FSB; the Rosgvardia, or National Guard; and the Presidential Security Service within the Federal Protective Service, or FSO. The FSB is Russia’s internal security and intelligence arm through which Putin governs given its relatively massive and ubiquitous presence across all the country’s institutions. The FSB enforces Putin’s rule, monitors dissent, intimidates, punishes, and liaises with organized crime. The Rosgvardia is Putin’s brute force. It was established in 2016 from among the interior ministry’s militias variously responsible for internal order and border security to be Putin’s long red line against protests, uprisings, and armed organized coup attempts.

Alexander Bortnikov leads the FSB, having succeeded Nikolai Patrushev, who followed Putin and has served since as one of his chief lieutenants. Until recently, Patrushev served as Russian Security Council chief and was most likely the Kremlin’s no. 2, and might still be, despite having been made a presidential advisor for shipping. Bortnikov, like Patrushev, shares Putin’s world view, paranoia for the West, political philosophy, and glorification of the old Soviet empire.

Bortnikov is considered by Kremlinologists to be Putin’s most relied-upon and trusted subordinate, and in turn, the individual best positioned to overthrow him, should he desire. While Bortnikov maintains a relatively low profile, limited glimpses suggest some degree of humility and contained ambition, although uncorroborated rumors suggest health issues. His deputy, Sergei Borisovich Korolev, some 10 years younger, is regarded as effective, similarly ruthless, but perhaps too ambitious and ostentatious in his relationships with Russian organized crime. It’s likely that Putin sees a bright future for Korolev but has enough reservation to justify more seasoning and evaluation before having him succeed Bortnikov.

The roughly 300,000-strong Rosgvardia is commanded by longtime former Putin bodyguard Viktor Zolotov. Likewise a part of Putin’s septuagenarian St. Petersburg crowd, with extensive past ties to organized crime, Zolotov emerged somewhat from the shadows following then-Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin’s June 2023 revolt. Zolotov claimed credit for protecting Moscow and mused publicly at how his organization would likely grow and secure more resources to facilitate its critical responsibilities.

Zolotov might not be as educated or sophisticated as Putin’s traditional siloviki associates, all former Cold War-era KGB veterans, but making his way up the ladder as he did from a St. Petersburg street thug, he’s not averse to using force to achieve his aims.

Little is publicly known concerning Zolotov’s politics apart from loyalty to his boss, but there’s no evidence he might offer a progressive alternative less hostile to the West. As Putin has done for all of those in his inner circle to secure their loyalty, Zolotov’s family members have been awarded land, gifts, and key posts. Patrushev’s son, for example, is now a deputy prime minister.

The FSO includes the Presidential Security Service, some 50,000 troops, and is responsible for Putin’s close physical protection. Little is known about its director, Dmitry Viktorovich Kochnev, now 60, whose mysterious official bio indicates that he was born in Moscow, served in the military from 1982 to 1984, and then went into “the security agencies of the USSR and the Russian Federation” from 1984 to 2002, after which time he was officially assigned to the FSO.

If Kochnev wanted Putin dead, he’s had plenty of time to pursue that goal, but he is unlikely to have the means and network to go further on his own in seizing power. Kochnev would still need the FSB and the Rosgvardia to accomplish the mission so would likely be an accomplice, but he would not be at the forefront of such a plot.

There are likewise a handful of others close to Putin who might influence his succession, or be the face of it, such as Igor Sechin, former deputy prime minister and current Rosneft CEO; former KGB Col. Gen. Sergei Ivanov, also a former defense minister and first deputy prime minister; and former KGB Col. Gen. Viktor Ivanov, who also had a stint as the Federal Narcotics Service director. All are known to be ideologically in line with the Russian leader and seek a restored empire unwilling to subscribe to a world order and rules created by the West that they believe aim to keep Moscow weak and subservient.

If Putin were assassinated abroad, regardless of the evidence, the old guard would likely accuse the United States and use it as a lightning rod to consolidate power and rally the public. And sharing Putin’s paranoia over the West’s existential threat, the risk is credible that they would retaliate militarily, directly, and with uncertain restraint. Believing themselves insecure, they would likewise crack down at home in an indiscriminately ruthless manner that might unleash long-contained revolutionary vigor among the population, which would throw a large, nuclear-armed power into chaos.

But could the United States do it if it wanted to? History shows that foreign leaders are not immune to assassination, as we were reminded when Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico survived being shot at close range by a disgruntled citizen in May. Unlike in the movies, however, assassinations are complicated, particularly against well-protected and deliberately unpredictable targets in foreign environments over which one has no control.

According to leaked documents and the account of Gleb Karakulov, a former engineer and FSO captain, Putin is paranoid concerning his safety and health. Karakulov’s observations, Putin’s limited travel, and his proclivity to cloister himself from direct contact with but a small number of insiders for his safety makes him a hard target. Scrupulous care for his movements includes the intense vetting, quarantining, and close monitoring of those involved with his transportation and his personal routine as well as in securing the cars, trains, and planes he uses. Who can forget the flurry of photos and memes surrounding the 15-foot-long table Putin used when conducting personal meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic?

For any such operation to succeed, close target reconnaissance and good intelligence are required to determine patterns and vulnerabilities on which to construct a plan. But while foreign head-of-state visits follow certain protocols and have predictable events, there are no long-term patterns within which to easily identify vulnerabilities. Other considerations include a means to infiltrate and exfiltrate the various members executing the operation as well as their tools. North Korea is not an easy place to visit let alone operate in for a foreign intelligence service to clandestinely steal secrets or conduct an observable action such as an assassination.

There are certainly additional risks when Putin or any foreign leader ventures beyond the layered, redundant, and tested security protocols enjoyed in their home cocoons. Visiting dignitaries must rely on the host government for a variety of resources and needs too numerous and costly to pack, and when doing so would offend the locals. And that extends to perimeter and route security, emergency medical support, and infrastructure integrity.

The threat to a foreign leader’s communications security, habits, health information, and that of their entourage is higher while in transit abroad—and therefore an attractive intelligence target. The multiple moving pieces and complicated logistics associated with such visits produce information that must be shared with the host governments and span agendas, itineraries, dietary requirements, flight and cargo manifests, communication frequencies, telephone numbers, email addresses, travelers’ biographic details, and weapons, to name a few.

In the era of ubiquitous technical surveillance, as the Israelis learned firsthand when Mossad agents assassinated Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in 2010, going undetected in any city is no small feat. Mabhouh’s killing was largely captured on CCTV. The Dubai investigation identified as many as 28 operatives who were involved, almost all of whom were revealed through technical means or the leads they generated.

Still, whoever assassinated Lebanese Hezbollah’s notorious international operations chief, Imad Mughniyah, in Damascus in February 2008 and al Qaeda deputy Abu Muhammad al-Masri in Tehran in 2020 managed to mount complex attacks in highly restrictive police states. Of course, neither moved about with a protective detail, let alone that which would surround a head of state.

Israel managed to assassinate Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, in November 2020 in Iran despite a protective detail—although it was an operation that might have been taken from a science fiction movie involving automated robotic machines guns controlled from afar.

Then again, even with the best-laid plans for protecting Putin, one weak link could be the Russian leader’s self-imposed vulnerability, depending on the aging and problematic Soviet-designed Ilyushin Il-96 series jets he uses, as he did in recent travels to North Korea and Vietnam. Even if Russia builds and updates the replacement parts, there is long-term structural fatigue and limitations when trying to reconfigure so old an airframe design.

While there’s arguably an element of Putin’s pride in wishing to use Russian equipment, I suspect his inclination is driven more by paranoia for what adversaries might implant on his transport that prevents him from adopting newer Western aircraft, as his country’s commercial airlines have.

There are also significant bureaucratic hurdles to lethal operations. For the moment, at least, the U.S. practice of covert action is dictated by the rule of law. These are primarily executive orders rather than public laws, like EO 12333, which ironically forbids assassination, and the various presidential memos issued by Barack Obama in 2013, Donald Trump in 2017, and Joe Biden in 2022 guiding the use of “direct action,” the euphemism for drone strikes and other kinetic operations, against terrorist targets outside of conflict zones. But while the United States killed Suleimani as a terrorist who fit these guidelines, killing foreign leaders based on credible intelligence reflecting their ongoing efforts to do harm to the United States would reasonably still meet the legal bar for preemptive self-defense.

When it comes to killing Putin or any prominent adversary, the biggest challenge is not necessarily if it can be done, but whether it should be done. Openly killing Suleimani posed risks, of course, but ultimately, Iran is not an existential threat. Its retaliation could have been more costly, had Tehran chosen escalation, but still manageable.

Russia, on the other hand, as Putin frequently reminds the West in his saber-rattling speeches threatening nuclear war, is another matter. What happens if you fail? As The Wire’s Omar Little said, paraphrasing Ralph Waldo Emerson, “When you come at the king, you best not miss.”

15 notes · View notes

melhindips · 1 month ago

Text

Four days later, the youth of the world are revolting everywhere. 🔻

The day of the revolutionary youth in all countries against the terrorist Jewish occupation everywhere, from everywhere, from Palestine, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Djibouti, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Mauritania, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Somalia and all countries of the world, the day of revenge, we are facing youth and a new generation that knows the meaning of the terrorist Jews, we are facing the day of rage in all cities of the world.

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇿🇼🇻🇺🇻🇳🇼🇫🇼🇸🇿🇦🇽🇰🇾🇹🇾🇪🇻🇳🇻🇪🇻🇮🇻🇨🇻🇬🇻🇦🇺🇿🇺🇾🇹🇻🇹🇼🇹🇿🇺🇦🇺🇬🇺🇲🇺🇸🇺🇳🇹🇹🇹🇷🇹🇴🇹🇳🇹🇲🇹🇱🇹🇰🇹🇯🇸🇾🇸🇿🇹🇦🇹🇨🇹🇩🇹🇫🇹🇬🇹🇭🇸🇽🇸🇻🇸🇹🇸🇸🇸🇷🇸🇴🇸🇳🇸🇲🇸🇩🇸🇪🇸🇬🇸🇭🇸🇮🇸🇯🇸🇰🇸🇱🇸🇨🇸🇧🇸🇦🇷🇼🇷🇺🇷🇸🇷🇴🇷🇪🇵🇲🇵🇳🇵🇷🇵🇸🇵🇹🇵🇼🇵🇾🇶🇦🇵🇱🇵🇰🇵🇭🇵🇬🇵🇫🇵🇪🇵🇦🇴🇲🇳🇬🇳🇮🇳🇱🇳🇴🇳🇵🇳🇷🇳🇺🇳🇿🇳🇫🇳🇪🇳🇨🇳🇦🇲🇿🇲🇾🇲🇽🇲🇼🇲🇴🇲🇪🇲🇵🇲🇫🇲🇶🇲🇬🇲🇷🇲🇭🇲🇸🇲🇰🇲🇹🇲🇱🇲🇺🇲🇲🇲🇻🇲🇳🇱🇸🇱🇹🇱🇺🇱🇻🇱🇾🇲🇦🇲🇨🇲🇩🇰🇾🇰🇿🇱🇦🇱🇧🇱🇨🇱🇮🇱🇰🇱🇷🇰🇼🇰🇷🇰🇵🇰🇳🇰🇲🇰🇮🇰🇭🇰🇬🇮🇷🇮🇸🇮🇹🇯🇪🇯🇲🇯🇴🇯🇵🇰🇪🇮🇨🇮🇩🇮🇪🇮🇲🇮🇳🇮🇴🇮🇶🇭🇺🇭🇹🇭🇷🇭🇳🇭🇲🇭🇰🇬🇾🇬🇼🇬🇲🇬🇳🇬🇵🇬🇶🇬🇷🇬🇸🇬🇹🇬🇺🇬🇧🇬🇩🇬🇪🇬🇫🇬🇬🇬🇭🇬🇮🇬🇱🇬🇦🇫🇷🇫🇴🇫🇲🇫🇰🇫🇯🇫🇮🇪🇺🇪🇦🇪🇨🇪🇪🇪🇬🇪🇭🇪🇷🇪🇸🇪🇹🇨🇿🇨🇴🇩🇪🇨🇵🇩🇬🇨🇷🇩🇯🇨🇺🇩🇰🇨🇻🇩🇲🇨🇼🇩🇴🇨🇽🇩🇿🇨🇾🇨🇫🇧🇹🇧🇦🇨🇬🇧🇻🇧🇱🇨🇭🇧🇼🇧🇲🇨🇮🇧🇾🇧🇳🇨🇰🇧🇿🇧🇴🇨🇱🇨🇦🇧🇶🇨🇲🇨🇨🇧🇷🇨🇩🇧🇸🇨🇳🇧🇮🇧🇭🇧🇬🇧🇫🇧🇪🇧🇩🇧🇧🇧🇦🇦🇶🇦🇷🇦🇸🇦🇹🇦🇺🇦🇼🇦🇽🇦🇿🇦🇴🇦🇲🇦🇱🇦🇮🇦🇬🇦🇫🇦🇪🇦🇩🇦🇨

#save palestine #artists on tumblr #free palestine #gaza strip #gaza #gravity falls

10 notes · View notes

mapsontheweb · 9 months ago

Photo

Terrorism in South Asia has been a persistent and complex issue. The region has faced various forms of terrorism, often fueled by political, religious, and ethnic tensions. Countries like India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh have witnessed acts of terrorism with different motives.

🌐 Regional Dynamics: Tensions between India and Pakistan have fueled cross-border terrorism, with militant groups operating in disputed regions like Jammu and Kashmir. Afghanistan has been grappling with the Taliban, contributing to instability. 🛑 Extremist Groups: Several extremist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and the Taliban, have been active in the region, carrying out attacks and posing significant security challenges. ⚖️ Counterterrorism Efforts: Countries in the region have engaged in counterterrorism efforts, including intelligence sharing, military operations, and diplomatic initiatives. However, the effectiveness varies, and challenges persist. 🕊️ Peace Initiatives: Despite ongoing challenges, there have been occasional peace talks and diplomatic efforts to address root causes and find lasting solutions. However, achieving sustained peace in the region remains a complex task. 🔍 Ongoing Concerns: South Asia continues to face threats from both domestic and transnational terrorist groups. Socioeconomic factors, political instability, and historical grievances contribute to the persistence of terrorism in the region. Addressing terrorism in South Asia requires a comprehensive approach, combining security measures with efforts to address root causes and promote regional cooperation.

by themapsdaily

#maps #themapsdaily #igsourced #india #pakistan #terrorism

53 notes · View notes

flipshitz · 8 months ago

Text

Refuting common blood libel about Jews and israel:

gen·o·cide

noun

the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

"a campaign of genocide"

From 1990 to 2022 the population of Palestine increased from 1.98 million to 5.04 million people. This is a growth of 155.0 percent in 32 years. The highest increase in Palestine was recorded in 1991 with 4.58 percent.

Israel is estimated to possess somewhere between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads (one can be used to wipe out all Palestinians if wanted but Israel will not)

What percent of Gaza's population has been killed?

7, 2023. With 23,357 killed in Israel's military operation in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health, the Gaza Strip population has now lost 1% of its 2.3 million residents. (There is no reason to believe these numbers are true as hamas is a terrorist organization with no intention of reporting accurate numbers therefore we can estimate less.)

Jews originally trace their ancestry to a confederation of Iron Age Semitic-speaking tribes known as the Israelites that inhabited a part of Canaan during the tribal and monarchic periods. Modern Jews are named after and also descended from the southern Israelite Kingdom of Judah.

With this we know that Jews come from Judea and Arabs come from Arabia.

49 Muslim countries 2 billion Muslims

To 15 million Jews in their one Jewish state the size of New Jersey. 100 to 1 odds.

Zion: the hill in Jerusalem where king David built his kingdom -David (flourished c. 1000 bce) was the second ruler of the united kingdom of ancient Israel and Judah

Israel predates Islam by 1500 years.

ZionISM: the believe that Jews have the right to self determination in their homeland.

Muhammad Amin al-Husayni (189?-1974) was the Mufti (chief Muslim Islamic legal religious authority) of Jerusalem under the political authority of the British Mandate in Palestine from 1921 to 1937. His primary political causes were: -exiling and further blocking from Jews in diaspora from immigration.

-Organizing pogroms against Jews

-meeting with Hitler

-launching a war that would they would again lose & effectively displace thousands of Palestinians back into their neighboring Arab countries where they came from and blaming it all on the Jews.

After three defensive wars in 1949, 1956, and 1967, Israel had expanded its territory, leading to heightened tensions with the Arab states. On October 6, 1973, an Arab coalition of Egyptian and Syrian forces launched a surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur—the Jewish holy day of atonement.

After these victories and acquiring of more land, the Israelis chose to give back their ancestral soil as a land for peace deal which the Palestinians would violate year after year by electing genocidal governments that seek to finish hitlers bidding.

To date; The bilateral agreements between Israel and the Palestinians contain no prohibition against the building or expansion of settlements.

Despite contrary allegations repeated ad nauseam.

2001 Israelis uprooted its citizens who had settled in Gaza already in order to make way for the Arabs to settle in an effort for peace but almost immediately they elect Hamas which is a proxy of Iran much like Hezbollah who’s only political agenda is to kill all Jews.

Oct 7th is a direct result of what happens when you invite terrorists to your front door.

For more copy and paste link:

SATURDAY-OCTOBER-SEVEN.COM

For the “UN” excuse;

Islamic Countries in the UN (46): Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Morocco, Iraq, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Syria, Kazakhstan, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, Tunisia, Guinea, Azerbaijan, Somalia, Tajikistan, Sierra Leone, Libya, Jordan, UAE, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Chad, Lebanon, Kuwait, Albania, Mauritania, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, Gambia, Comoros, Djibouti, Maldives, Brunei, Lebanon. All of which are under the influence of IRAN which guess what? Owns Hezbollah and Hamas as its proxies. All of these nations have genocided or exiled all of its Jews. It’s no wonder they all take a majority vote over israel while simultaneously burying their crimes against humanity - but no mention of that from the peanut gallery on ur end right? Doesn’t fit your shill narrative. And to make matters worse; Iran's appointment to chair UN yes that’s right IRAN was appointed as chair for human rights - which drew rightful criticism at least thank god. Oh and 450 terror operatives in Gaza, mostly Hamas members, are also employed by UNRWA

Attacks on Israel: (still on going)

Shlomo Zalman Zoref 1851

Battle of Tel Hai 1920

Jaffa riots 1921

Meora’ot Tarpat 1929

Hebron Massacre 1929

The great revolt 1936-1939

*in the years 1937-1939 was funded by nazi germany*

War of independence 1948

Scorpions pass massacre 1954

Palestinian fedayeen

Jerusalem bombings 1969

Lord Airport massacre 1972

Munich massacre 1972

Yom Kippur Surprise attack 1973

Ma’alot Massacre 1974

Coastal road massacre 1978

Lanarca yacht killings 1985

1st intifada 1987-1993

Tel Aviv Jerusalem bus 405 attack 1989

Night of the pitchforks 1992

Western wall tunnel riots 1996

2nd intifada 2000-2008

Dolphinarium Discoteque massacre 2001

Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing 2001

Haifa bus bombing (16 suicide bombs) 2001

Passover massacre 2002

Yeshiva beit Yisrael bombing 2002

Cafe moment moment bombing 2002

Matza restaurant suicide bombing 2002

Yagur junction bombing 2002

Rishon lezion bombing 2002

Meggido junction bus bombing 2002

Patt junction bus bombing 2002

Karkur junction bombing 2002

Kiryat Menachem bus bombing 2002

Tel Aviv central bus station massacre 2003

Beersheba bus bombing 2004

2nd rosh ha’ir Restaraunt bombing 2006

Kedumim bombing 2006

Eilat bombing 2007

Jerusalem bus stop bombing 20011

Itamar massacre 2011

Tel Aviv truck attack 2011

Shaar ha negev school bus attack 2011

Tel Aviv bus bombing 2012

Gush Etzion kidnapping and murder 2014

Jerusalem synagogue attack 2014

Stabbing intifada 2015-2016

Tel Aviv shooting 2016

Temple Mount shooting 2017

Ariel stabbing 2018

Samaria combined attack 2019

Wave of terror 2022

Jerusalem bombings 2022

Bizengoff shooting 2023

Ramot junction attack 2023

October 7th massacre 2023

#i stand with israel #israel facts #hamas is isis #fuck hamas

14 notes · View notes

infiniteglitterfall · 11 months ago

Note

Nothing you say will change the undeniable fact that Israel has killed more than 1% of the civilian population of Gaza through indiscriminate bombing since the start of this war

this is why Hamas only reports total people killed, and doesn't separate out civilians and combatants. because it knows that you'll assume they were all civilians, despite zero reason to assume that. nobody else does it that way. every single country on earth reports civilians and combatants separately, because killing civilians is a war crime.

Part of the reason that this is really good propaganda is that if someone responds by clarifying that it was only ____ civilians, they will sound like they're minimizing, which will lead to immediately dismissing their point.

Hamas is honestly masterful at propaganda.

Which sucks.

Anyway, if you want Undeniable Facts or at least Numbers: there are 2.3M people in Gaza, of which 30,000-40,000 are Hamas military. An unknown number are Hamas leaders, cybersecurity, military academy staff, etc. None of that really makes a dent in a number like 2,300,000, though. As of the beginning of December, more than 5,000 of the 15k+ it had then killed were Hamas members, for a civilian:combatant casualty ratio of almost 2:1.

Meaning that it had killed almost 10,000 civilians. Which also sucks.

For the curious, here are the ratios of civilian:combatant deaths you get with the numbers here for various wars:

Mexican Revolution 1:1

WWI close to 1:1

WWII between 3:2 and 2:1

Korean War about 2:1

Vietnam War 2:1 at highest estimate, 1:1 at lowest

Russia-Afghanistan War between 5.6:1 and 20:1

Israel-Lebanon War 6:1

Both Chechen Wars 7.6:1

NATO in Yugoslavia most likely 4:1

Afghanistan War 0.4:1 (or if you treat the civilians as the basis for comparison, it's 1:2.5)

Iraq War 1:2 thru 2015, then 4.5:1

U.S. Drone attacks in Pakistan 1:5

Second Intifada between 1:1 and 2:1, with 59% of Palestinian and 69% of Israeli deaths being civilians

2008 Gaza War 3:2

2014 Gaza War between 1:1 and 3:1

Ukraine: 1:6 as of end of 2022 - surprisingly, this is the lowest ratio of any of the wars I've looked at

Israel-Hamas war as of beginning of December: 2:1. (15600 total, more than 5000 combatants.)

As of Dec 19, Israel has killed 19,667 people in Gaza. Let's see if we can get an actual number for how many of those are civilians.

I can't find an up-to-date number for combatants. It was 5,000+ on the 6th, and 7,000+ by the 10th,

It's been primarily fighting in Hamas strongholds that aren't SUPPOSED to have any civilians in them. Given that it killed three hostages, that's obviously not guaranteed. But that's why the number went up so fast.

As of the 19th, Israel has killed 4,000 people in about two weeks. At least half of those are combatants. But it's also wildly unlikely that it's only killed civilians since the 10th. Guessing that half of those deaths were combatants seems reasonable; it should be more, based on all the info we have.

That means that Israel may have killed 11,667 civilians, of maybe 2.27M civilians in Gaza. And killed 8,000 Hamas members, of maybe 30,000. (700 have also surrendered, last I checked.)

To be fair, separating out the combatant deaths doesn't do a lot to change what percent of civilians have been killed, because 2.3M is such a big number.

It's 0.6% with them, 0.5% without them. (Not 1%, fortunately.)

But it's always worth noting that Hamas is a lying group of liars that lied about having raped civilians en masse, lied about having killed civilians en masse, lied about wanting to specifically fight Israel and not Jews in the rest of the world, and is even happier to mislead people than it is to lie outright.

By contrast, it's about 30% of Hamas, between Israel killing its members being killed, and them surrendering.

I don't particularly like the number of terrorists killed either, tbh. Despite how enthusiastically some people misinterpreted what I said, I don't like it when anybody gets killed.

#it really bothers me that people minimize the absolute goddamn horrors of every genocide by calling this a genocide #genocide is not an adjective you use to show that you're REALLY REALLY EXTRA against the killing #you can be REALLY REALLY EXTRA AGAINST WAR without minimizing the genocidal rapes and the mass mutilation and all the rest #I have driven past rivers that were filled with blood during the California Genocide ffs #this is not about anon #anon didn't say anything about genocide #it's just making me think about how many groups had 60%-90% of their people wiped out in the most brutal ways possible #the kind of stuff that resembles what Hamas did but not what is happening to Hamas #i am going to stop thinking about examples of what Hamas did and not list them here in the tags #bc it is bad for everyone's mental health #mine included #this does not mean i will not post about it one of these days tho #wall of words

14 notes · View notes

submalevolentgrace · 11 months ago

Text

Calling some US actions after 9/11 “mistakes” is the height of imperial arrogance. During the Bush administration and beyond, inarguably the most destructive US presidency in the 21st century, there was a worldwide torture campaign, the creation and expansion of the detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, the illegal invasion of Iraq, the use of black sites for extraordinary rendition and the death of nearly five million people, according to Brown University’s Cost of War Project. Today, Israel is also filled with anger and vengeance and does not care one iota about the death of Palestinian civilians. Many in the Netanyahu-led government have expressed genocidal intent towards the entire Palestinian population. Most in the Israeli military and public are celebrating the physical abuse of Palestinians. Amid an atmosphere that is remarkably similar to the US after 9/11, the Israeli “war on terror” is taking shape. With resounding approval from the general public, the Israeli army has undertaken systematic carpet bombing of the Gaza Strip, dropping in a month more than 25,000 tonnes of explosives, the equivalent of two nuclear bombs. The bombardment of the small enclave mirrors the US air campaigns that used an extraordinary amount of ordnance on Iraq and Afghanistan over two decades, leaving behind immense devastation.

this is the closest i've seen to anyone else really pointing out the links between post-911 america and current israel.

why is there not the same outrage, the same condemnation, of the usa that there is of israel? from my own personal experiences: because it is not safe for us, citizens in supposed allied countries of the usa, it is not safe for us to condemn the usa. it is still not safe for us to condemn the usa's "war on terror", a war that is still happening, that hasn't ended for over 20 years. if "foreigners" condemn america, we become terrorists, so there is only space left for americans to condem america, and they do not care.

i saw with my own eyes in real time the mass support from americans for the war on terror, the rage, the thirst for revenge, the only space allowed for criticism among your self policing was the "anti-war" stance that bush was after the wrong kinds of foreigners. when you were and are told of the children being drone bombed by operators in your local shopping malls, you wail and cry in deflection: "that's the government, not us! we are powerless! we don't even have healthcare!"

do you think the children you are bombing in yemen, somalia, and pakistan have healthcare? do you even know you're killing them? you have direct bodily access to your politicians, you know where they work, where they live. if you are demanding israeli citizens force their government to stop killing palestine, what have you done in the last 20 years? what can you bring yourself to be bothered to do, if the lives your government are crushing are just dumb cringe foreigners that don't even use fahrenheit?

better to just be outraged at israel for copying your war crimes homework, that's safe.

i don't even know if i can safely tell you what happens to "allied" citizens that dare stand too tall against the war america forced us into, because i shouldn't know.

americans are the only ones that can stop their government.

americans are the only ones that can stop my government, too.

#i am so fucking sick of this all #i am sick of the 911 jokes #i am sick of the yanks that wanted to nuke the whole world in november 2016 #i am sick of my country fighting americas wars because if we dont we are in the crosshairs #i am sick of what your soldiers do to the women and children in our countries #and i am sick of you all thinking you are the biggest victims #turning notifications off instantly

8 notes · View notes

starlightshadowsworld · 1 year ago

Note

Hey, what is your thought about we slowly overwrite western judgement on arabs and Palestinian as Terrorist, into us saying that France is Terrorist Lover country for funding Israel, United Kingdon into Queen/Mother of Terrorist, and United States into United Terrorist? It fits them better. We have to turn their propaganda into the most degrading and embaraasing boomerang.

I want these countries to lose their attractiveness, good images, trust, and any good propaganda that they make to their name.

I appreciate that you think I'm in any way qualified to answer this.

Because I'm definitely not.

What I will say is that I am all for it.

Because the glamour and supposed prestige western countries exhibit is something we need to be critical off.

Because it's allowed them to get this far exploiting people both past and present.

They frame Arabs as violent as savage when they are the ones being slaughtered and tortured.

Whole countries and nations have been systematically uprooted and changed forever.

And those affects are still felt today.

In Palestine, Congo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc.

All things that were started by and than escalated by these western countries who have than reaped the benefits.

What we've learned from the way media is covering Palestine, is that the language we use is so important.

And using that language properly, well it's the least we can do.

And we should do, those like the UK and the US have blood on their hands from this and so many other conflicts worldwide.

They are able to do shit like veto a UN Security Council resolution for a ceasefire in a genocide.

Of destabilising and assassinating world leaders in countries they don't want to succeed.

And if their own laws won't hold them accountable, we should.

But while we do that, it's important we share other cultures, share narratives and stories and art and food from all other the world.

And embrace them.

White supremacist ideology can't be upheld if there's no idealised view of whiteness.

That these countries desperately cling on to.

... I dunno if I answered this right I am very much sleep deprived and have provably gone off on a tangent.

But yes I agree.

We can't forget this, what they've done and continue to do elsewhere.

We will not forget this.

And we will mock them mercilessly for it.

And I say all this as a Pakistani born and raised in the UK.

People are walking down the streets in protest shouting Rishi Sunak is a twat and a wasteman.

I am all for this.

And using their own words against them? Oh they'll hate that.

Never let them forget they are the animals here.

That they always have been.

#free palestine #free gaza #palestine #uk #us #anti israel #anti zionisim

13 notes · View notes

dragoneyes618 · 5 months ago

Text

(April 4, 2024 / JNS)

The growing chorus of voices on the political left that have been loudly demanding that Israel’s war on Hamas be stopped have been waiting for this. After months of seeking to leverage false stories such as one about a missile attack on a hospital, downplaying or denying the way Hamas embeds its terrorist forces in hospitals, schools and civilian homes, and flogging statistics about Palestinian civilian casualties that are clearly bogus, the anti-Israel lobby thinks that it finally has a way to force the Jewish state to stand down in Gaza.

A mistaken strike that caused the deaths of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers who were bringing food and other supplies into the Strip is being treated as not merely a tragic accident all too common in wars, but as an act of transcendent symbolism that proves that Israel’s tactics are too brutal to be allowed to continue.

Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top storiesFREE SIGN UP

By signing up, you agree to receive emails from JNS and allied pro-Israel organizations.

That was not merely the substance of a torrent of unhinged comments from World Central Kitchen founder Chef José Andrés who, without a shred of proof, accused Israel of deliberately murdering the aid workers. It was also the substance of the threats directed at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by President Joe Biden in a tense 30-minute call. Reportedly, Biden said that future military aid to Israel—vital for the resupply of Israeli forces in order for the war on Hamas to continue—would be linked to whether it satisfies his demands about ensuring that both civilians and aid workers are not harmed.

Backing away from Israel

Biden has been slowly but surely backing away from his initial support for the war and the goal of eradicating Hamas since the Palestinian terrorist group started it with unspeakable atrocities on Oct. 7. The administration has toyed at times with the idea of linking aid to halting the offensive, but never previously acted on the idea, despite the constant urgings of left-wing Democrats to do so. The aid worker incident thus is a turning point as this is the first time that Biden has directly said that he would impose conditions on military assistance.

This takes the dispute between the two governments to a very different and far more dangerous level.

It’s important to be clear about what is happening. While the deaths of the aid workers were the result of a terrible blunder by the Israel Defense Forces, the firestorm of criticism aimed at Israel in the days since the incident occurred isn’t really about their tragic fate, sad though it is.

Nor is it really rooted in a substantive argument claiming that the IDF is failing to take precautions to avoid civilian deaths or to anything to hinder the flow of aid into Gaza, including the area that is still controlled by Hamas. The world’s leading experts on warfare, including John Spencer, the chair of urban warfare studies at West Point, and historian Andrew Roberts, have already declared that not only is Israel upholding the laws of war in its Gaza campaign but has done so in a manner that has caused fewer civilian casualties in such a battle than any in modern history. The claim that Israel has engaged in an “indiscriminate” bombing campaign or is “over the top,” as Biden has claimed, simply isn’t true.

Biden’s hypocrisy

It is also breathtakingly hypocritical.

Mistakes in war always happen as U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—and famously before that, in Korea and Vietnam—proved.

On his first day in office in January 2009, President Barack Obama ordered drone strikes in Waziristan, Pakistan, which led to the deaths of as many as 20 civilians. That would be only the first of 540 strikes on diverse targets in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq in which more than 300 civilians would be killed during his two terms in office, though that number might be underestimated since the strikes were conducted in areas where reporting casualties was not as organized as it is in Gaza. Though Obama would later joke that he had discovered in the White House that “it turns out that I’m really good at killing people,” no one in the corporate press assumed that the Nobel Peace Prize winner was deliberately slaughtering civilians by the dozens as part of a “targeted killings” of terror suspects.

Biden has direct responsibility for killing civilians in error as well.

On Aug. 29, 2021, during the disastrous and humiliating U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, American forces conducted a strike on what they thought was a member of the ISIS-K terror group transporting bombs. They were operating under orders from Washington; however, it turned out to be a tragic mistake, and the missiles launched from MQ-9 Reaper drones killed 10 innocent civilians, including seven children.

While Biden issued a lengthy and passionate statement denouncing the deaths of the seven aid workers, he did no such thing when his own orders led to the accidental deaths of innocents. Instead, he let military officials make the statement about the error and take the fallout while he went to the beach for the weekend.

Of course, Obama and Biden didn’t intend to kill civilians while Americans were trying to take out terrorists. But it happened quite often for the same reasons that this week’s tragedy occurred. Even with the most sophisticated weaponry and satellite imaging of target areas, amid the fog of war, there are no guarantees that even missions fully vetted with great care and intended to take out only combatants will go according to plan.

Indeed, in December, the IDF conceded that about 20% of soldiers that had been killed during the current war were victims of “friendly fire” in which they were mistaken for foes by their own side. Many Americans have died under similar circumstances in wars fought by the United States.

Even when armies take special care to avoid accidents, anyone who enters a combat zone where bullets and bombs are flying is at risk of being killed or wounded. That is always going to be true whether or not those put at risk are combatants or non-combatants.

In the case of the World Central Kitchen victims, the problem, which remains ongoing, is accentuated by the fact that Hamas terrorists lurk near aid convoys since they steal most of what has been brought into Gaza for civilian use. Indeed, it is fairly obvious that if Hamas terrorists weren’t taking the food, fuel and other supplies that have flowed into Gaza with Israeli permission these past six months, there would be no talk about people starving there.

That doesn’t lessen the grief of the families of those who die as a result of errors. But it should put the situation in perspective. Their deaths—like those of everyone else who has been killed since Hamas attacked southern Israel in an orgy of murder, rape, torture, kidnapping and wanton destruction on Oct. 7—are the responsibility of the terrorists and their many supporters.

Letting Hamas win

Though Israeli military and political leaders have had numerous discussions with their American counterparts in which the counter-offensive into Gaza has been criticized, the latter has had no realistic suggestions about how Hamas terrorist forces might be eliminated other than by the methods the Jewish state has been employing. The notion that Hamas can be eliminated without Israeli troops taking physical possession of their last enclave in Rafah in the south and striking at the four remaining intact Hamas battalions there is risible. Therefore, Biden’s demand for “tangible steps” by Israel can only mean one thing: stop the war or conduct it in a manner that ensures that the goal of the complete defeat of Hamas and the end of its control of any part of Gaza cannot be achieved.

That means that if Israel is to continue receiving military aid, it must agree to a situation in which the war against Hamas simply cannot be won. Should Netanyahu decide that those conditions must be accepted, it virtually guarantees that the Islamist group will emerge from the conflict it began not only alive and well but as its victor, with undoubted primacy in Palestinian politics for the foreseeable future.

These conditions are the inevitable result not of the specific incident involving the aid workers but of an incessant campaign of incitement and smears directed at Israel even before ground troops entered Gaza after the Simchat Torah pogroms in 22 Israeli communities and at the Nova music festival.

Biden’s threats are the culmination of the opprobrium that has been directed at Israel from left-wing editorial pages and the genocidal chants from mobs supporting Hamas that have been heard on the streets of American cities and on college campuses. Indeed, so successful has been the effort to demonize the Israeli war effort that Biden said his own wife Jill had demanded that he do something to “stop it, stop it now.”

Political motives

His willingness to heed these calls to halt the Israeli effort to defeat Hamas goes beyond a desire for domestic peace in the White House. The entire left wing of the Democratic Party, including many so-called “progressives” in Congress, has been clamoring that he use the threat of aid cutoffs to end the war prior to the release of the more than 100 hostages still being held by Hamas, including five Americans. Isolated in the White House, Biden and his advisers truly believe that the reason he’s currently trailing former President Donald Trump in his battle for re-election is because he’s considered insufficiently hostile to Israel by the intersectional activist wing of his party that is ever more hostile to Zionism and the Jewish state.

When measured against the yawns and shrugged shoulders from the White House under Obama and Biden when civilians died as a result of their orders, it’s easy to see that the outrage about the aid workers has little to do with humanitarian concerns. Instead, it is about hatred for Israel that has taken root in left-wingers who have come to believe that Israel must not be allowed to defeat Hamas and that any civilian casualties that occur as a result of the terrorists’ actions are too many.

If Biden really wants to end the fighting in Gaza, then he should be directing all of his anger and threats against Hamas and its backers, not the Israelis. If Hamas surrendered and released the hostages—ranging from a baby to an 86-year-old man—the war would be over immediately. Instead, by threatening to trash the alliance with Israel and the mandate that it must live with Hamas terrorism, including the threat of more Oct. 7 massacres in the future, he has only strengthened the resolve of the Islamist murderers to stand their ground, secure in the belief that the United States will save them from the justice they so richly deserve for their crimes.

As much as we may all mourn what happened to the aid workers, the willingness of Israel’s foes and false friends like Biden to use this incident to end the war against Hamas should not be considered a manifestation of humanitarian sentiment. If their tragic fate provides the leverage that Washington uses to end the war, then the blood of the Israelis—and those in other nations who will fall victim to a revitalized international terror movement funded by Iran—will be on the heads of those who cynically exploited their deaths.

#israel hamas war

2 notes · View notes