aliwav:

cloudbaby9:

gookgod:

cloudbaby9:

psa: Israel gives a warning before attacking any building in gaza, so you have time to leave. they only target Hamas bases. they have killed Hamas leaders using this tactic.

never knew kids could become hamas leaders… thanks israel 

kids could be human sheilds and any civilian killed is not part of Israel’s plan.. Like logically why would they want to kill children? or anyone? its a war. (and i as a Jew and a zionist am not at all happy tht any Palestinian is dead) and again, they have killed Hamas leaders.. Hamas is a terror org. Its not a wasted effort. Plus Hamas hurts the civilians much more than Israel.

hamas is a democratically elected military/resistance group whose funds (more than 75%) goes to healthcare and other social welfare means

you’re already invalidating yourself by saying “I as a jew and a zionist”

and “hamas hurts civilians much more than israel” really…thats what you wanna go for, please think long and hard about what you said, I only hope you find how stupid and completely ignorant it is, you might as well be dancing on those children’s graves talking like this but I’m sleep

egg01-deactivated20140814: Hello, I'm using a blog that isn't my main to ask you this but I was wondering whether you could provide me with some key links to dismantle the wah wah human shields waah wah israeli tears argument? I've saved several myself and have been visiting your blog daily. Its no problem if not!

redphilistine:

The Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I, Article 51(7) (pg 26 in document), has this to say about human shields:

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, “the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.

While there has been evidence that Hamas and other resistance groups have fired weapons from or stored them in civilian areas, no evidence has ever been presented that they do this intentionally to shield these weapons from Israeli attack. This has repeatedly been noted from human rights organizations like Amnesty International in its report on the 2008-09 massacre of Gaza (page 76, paragraph 5) all the way to journalists like Jeremy Bowen of the pro-Israel BBC

It must be understood that the Gaza Strip is a small piece of territory, housing 1.8 million people. It is made even smaller by a no-man’s land that has been expanded to 3 km in this latest massacre, reducing the territory’s size by 40%. There is literally no place in Gaza that does not have civilians because there is no room.

Furthermore, as far as evidence of human shields is concerned, it is in fact Israel that stands accused. The allegations, which are no doubt true, are detailed in Amnesty International report I link to above, which also states that many of the civilian homes that were targeted had no weapons inside nor were located near military activity by Palestinian groups. The UN has also released a report indicating that Israel makes routine use of Palestinian children as human shields

But let’s say all of that is false and that Israel is telling the truth about the Palestinian resistance’s use of human shields. Protocol I, Article 51(8) states:

Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

So even if Hamas were using Palestinians as human shields, this does not give Israel the legal right to attack these areas without safeguarding the civilian population. In other words, no matter what you personally believe is the truth about “human shields,” Israel’s actions in Gaza, not just in this latest massacre but in previous ones as well, are in direct contravention of all customary international law. 

wocinsolidarity:

fuckyeahcracker:

fuckyeahcracker:

fuckyeahcracker:

Effects Of Thinking White People Are “All Like That”:

  • Literally nothing other than white people having their feelings hurt on the internet
  • I’m not joking there is no real world consequence of this

Effects Of Thinking People of Color Are “All Like That”:

But yeah, white people’s feelings :*(

I actually changed my mind, I’m adding more

Whoa, it does not stop

Imagine how tragic it would be if someone hurt your feelings by letting you know that you benefit from not having this happen to you, though

!!!

to everyone still using the dictionary definition of racism to rationalize the existence of what they call “reverse racism”

shavingryansprivates:

the following are all quotes from sociologists, civil rights activists, and government committees devoted to race relations in the united states

PREJUDICE

“Unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand without knowledge, thought or reason.”
— from RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY, 1967 

RACISM

“Any attitude, action or institutional structure which subordinates a person or group because of their color … Racism is not just a matter of attitudes; actions and institutional structures can also be a form of racism.”
—from RACISM IN AMERICA AND HOW TO COMBAT IT, U.S. commission on Civil Rights, 1970 

AND


“Racism is different from racial prejudice, hatred, or discrimination. Racism involves having the power to carry out systematic discriminatory practices through the major institutions of our society.”
— from WHAT CURRICULUM LEADERS CAN DO ABOUT RACISM by Dr. Delmo Della-Dora, New Detroit, Inc. 1970 

WHITE RACISM

“Power + Prejudice = Racism.”
—from DEVELOPING NEW PERSPECTIVES ON RACE, by Pat A. Bidol

“In the United States at present, only whites can be racists, since whites dominate and control the institutions that create and enforce American cultural norms and values … blacks and other Third World peoples do not have access to the power to enforce any prejudices they may have, so they cannot, by definition, be racists.”
—from EDUCATION & RACISM, National Education Association. 1973 

“Racism and white racism mean the same thing, if we are referring to practices of major institutions and dominant societal patterns in the United States today … White people are in the majority in the country … Thus, government, business, industry, unions, churches, educational and other institutions are almost always dominated by white people. When you combine power with racial discrimination, the result is racism.”

RACIST SOCIETY

“Is one in which social policies, procedures, decisions, habits and acts do in fact subjugate a race of people and permit another race to maintain control over them … No society will distribute social benefits in a perfectly equitable way. But no society need use race as a criterion to determine who will be rewarded and who punished. Any nation which permits race to affect those who benefit from social policies is racist.”
—from INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IN AMERICA

WHO IS A RACIST?

“All white individuals in our society are racists. Even if a white is totally free from all conscious racial prejudices, he remains a racist, for he receives benefits distributed by a white racist society through its institutions. Our institutional and cultural processes are so arranged as to automatically benefit whites, just because they are white.

It is essential for whites to recognized that they receive most of these racist benefits automatically, unconsciously, unintentionally.”
—from EDUCATION & RACISM, National Education Association. 1973

if, after reading these entries, written by qualified researchers, scientists, and committees, you still see a dictionary definition of such a controversial word as more fitting than the definition provided by those who study and research the topic, you need to seriously re-examine your reasoning.

are you sticking to the definition because it’s convenient for you? do you believe these people to be unqualified to speak on the topic? do you really want to be the victim THAT badly?

no one is saying that minorities cannot be prejudiced towards whites. no one is saying that unnecessary violence against whites is a good thing. but at the same time, you need to acknowledge that we live in a society that objectively provides whites more opportunity than minorities, even those in less-than-fortunate socioeconomic circumstances. this is the truth of our culture. why are you denying it? are you so afraid to be labelled a racist that you refuse to acknowledge these destructive power structures?