What to comment on this news article than to say that the human blood has become very cheap now. Killing another human being has become extremely easy with the proliferation of small arms to large weapons. Be it armed gangs or law enforcement agencies or military, access to a weapon is easy, & the mentality of "shoot first, think later" has spread everywhere.
Killing indiscriminately another human being carries no adverse consequences. Legal & illegal sales of arms & weapons is a huge lucrative business for both smuggling groups & such developed nations as US, Canada, Russia, China, Germany, France, UK, Sweden etc.
So, when one of the most profitable industries around the world is in making weapons, then how can we not expect a constant increase in civilian deaths. It would be a bit foolish & naïve to expect a decline in human deaths with the developed countries actively subsidizing their weapons industries & actively hawking their military wares on the international stage. And then everyone wants to innocently proclaim that they are only working for peace around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The global civilian death toll from explosive weapons has increased dramatically in recent years, driven in part by the greater use of aerial bombs on populated areas, often by governments including Syria & Israel, according to a report.
Although the international community has taken concerted action to curb the use of chemical weapons, the report by advocacy group Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) confirms that conventional explosives, can be just as devastating & indiscriminate when used against towns & cities.
AOAV’s report, Explosive States, which examines data for 2014, found that when explosive weapons were used in urban areas, 92% of the casualties were civilians, compared with 34% in rural areas. In 2014, there were 32,662 civilian casualties from weapons including aerial bombs, mortars & car bombs, an increase of 5% on 2013, & 52% higher than 2011, when AOAV started collecting data.
“This is the third consecutive year that we have seen an increase in civilian deaths & injuries from explosive weapons,” Iain Overton, the director of investigations at AOAV, said. “With civilians bearing the brunt of explosive weapon harm in Gaza, Ukraine, Nigeria, Iraq, Syria & Afghanistan, the question has to be: how many more will have to die before states agree to end the use of explosive weapons in populated areas?”
More than half the civilian casualties in 2014 were caused by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) such as car bombs & suicide vests. The prevalence of such weapons in Iraq has helped make it the most dangerous place in the world for civilians, in terms of explosive weapons, with more than 10,000 casualties for the second year running. Syria was second with 6,245 recorded civilian casualties (though AOAV acknowledges that it is likely to be gross underestimate due to reporting difficulties).
Deaths by IED increased dramatically in Nigeria over the course of 2014, as Boko Haram targeted markets, bus stops & places of worship. Almost all the 2,407 casualties in the country were caused by car bombs, suicide bomb attacks or other IEDs.
The most striking and lethal development in 2014 was the increased use of aerial bombs by governments on densely populated areas. The number of civilian casualties from such weapons almost trebled from the previous year. The overwhelming majority of the casualties by aerial bombardment were caused by Syria (46% of the total) & Israel (35%).
In Syria, government forces made dramatically increased use of barrel bombs – containers filled with fuel, explosives & chunks of jagged metal typically pushed out of helicopters by hand, killing people & destroying buildings over a wide areas. In 2013, barrel bombs accounted for 20% of aerial attacks. In 2014, that proportion had doubled. The bulk of barrel bomb attacks (85%) were on urban areas.
Israeli air attacks accounted for more than half the civilian casualties in Gaza in 2014. According to UN figures, there were 2,131 deaths from Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in July & August, 69% of which were civilian. But Israel also used high explosive ground-launched & naval shells during that campaign against built-up targets. As a result, Israel outdid even Syria as the state responsible for the most civilian casualties from explosive weapons in 2014, according to the AOAV report.
“Our data shows that states were far more willing to carry out aerial bombings in populated areas, bucking a recent trend. It’s a deeply worrying development,” Overton said. “It’s almost no surprise to see Israel was the state force behind the most civilian casualties from explosive weapons. The weapons used in Gaza last year included thousands of unguided artillery shells, as well as massive aircraft bombs, which, even if guided to a target, can still impact a wide area. AOAV’s research suggests, that for artillery at least, Israel had relaxed the rules, making it easier for troops to use these weapons in or near populated areas. You simply can’t do that on such a large scale without increasing risk of death, injury & damage to civilians & civilian areas.”
Well, Muslims already dislike Israeli occupation of Palestine, but reading these kinds of stories / articles, I wonder how come others still support the occupation, wholeheartedly. Heck, saying anything against the Israeli occupation is considered "anti-Semitic" & many developed countries are outlawing it, outright (Canada, included). And then the whole world considers the developed countries of the West as fair, just, & humane?
But then, is it fair to solely blame the West for supporting Israel in its illegal occupation of Palestine? After all, the leader of the country, where Islam's 2 holiest sites are located, who is also known as, "custodian of the 2 holy mosques," collaborated with Israelis against Iran, for its own geopolitical agenda.
It was not that surprising to read the gung-ho, radicalized, extreme hateful attitudes of the Israeli soldiers towards Palestinians. It wasn't surprising to read how bombings were conducted or civilians were killed ("shoot in memory of our comrade" who was killed by friendly fire). It was not surprising that how sites which should not have been bombed (UN schools being used as refugee centers, for example) were bombed & reported in the world media that they were never bombed (because the firing order was given for a few hundred meters out of the supposedly-protected site, & then given a "correction order" to fire again at the site, & only the first firing order is logged in the records, not the "correction fire.")
It wasn't surprising, at least to me, & I assume that to millions more around the world, because these kinds of stories about Israel are not uncommon. There are news articles, opinion pieces, movies, etc. for as long as I can remember. Heck, with internet, it's becoming even easier to spread these kinds of stories around. But, the situation on the ground have only gotten worsen in the past half century, & not become better in any way.
Be it any war waged by anyone (US, UK, NATO, Israel etc.) for any reason (usually to kill a threat), it usually achieves the opposite. The threat never goes away & actually, increases much more. Because, the person whose innocent family has been killed off right before him/her, has no reason or hope to keep living. Then, that person becomes a suicide bomber & joins a party which allows it to take revenge.
On top of that, actions like these by countries waging wars make their own populace further insecure, since now, they don't know if & when that person will strike back. This was all very nicely portrayed in a Canadian movie, "Inch'Allah". It even showed how adversely these hardline tactics affect Israeli soldiers themselves, since their hearts know what they are doing is wrong (assuming they are conscientious enough), but they have to follow orders. This long-term conflict between the hearts & minds give them PTSDs. So nobody is winning with this illegal occupation of Palestine.
People who have their eyes closed will keep defending Israel & dismiss stories like these, even though, these are accounts of the war from soldiers who were themselves involved in that uni-lateral Gaza war of 2014. These people don't just stop there but take away anyone's right to criticize Israel, too.
As George Orwell said, "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testimonies provided by more than 60 Israeli soldiers who fought in last summer’s war in Gaza have raised serious questions over whether Israel’s tactics breached its obligations under international law to distinguish & protect civilians.
The claims – collected by the human rights group Breaking the Silence – are contained in dozens of interviews with Israeli combatants, as well as with soldiers who served in command centres & attack rooms, a quarter of them officers up to the rank of major.
They include allegations that Israeli ground troops were briefed to regard everything inside Gaza as a “threat” & they should “not spare ammo”, & that tanks fired randomly or for revenge on buildings without knowing whether they were legitimate military targets or contained civilians.
In their testimonies, soldiers depict rules of engagement they characterised as permissive, “lax” or largely non-existent, including how some soldiers were instructed to treat anyone seen looking towards their positions as “scouts” to be fired on.
The group also claims that the Israeli military operated with different safety margins for bombing or using artillery & mortars near civilians & its own troops, with Israeli forces at times allowed to fire significantly closer to civilians than Israeli soldiers.
Phillipe Sands, professor of law at University College London & a specialist in international humanitarian law, described the testimonies as “troubling insights into intention & method”.
“Maybe it will be said that they are partial & selective, but surely they cannot be ignored or brushed aside, coming as they do from individuals with first-hand experience: the rule of law requires proper investigation & inquiry.”
Describing the rules that meant life & death in Gaza during the 50-day war – a conflict in which 2,200 Palestinians were killed – the interviews shed light for the first time not only on what individual soldiers were told but on the doctrine informing the operation.
Despite the insistence of Israeli leaders that it took all necessary precautions to protect civilians, the interviews provide a very different picture. They suggest that an overarching priority was the minimisation of Israeli military casualties even at the risk of Palestinian civilians being harmed.
While the Israel Defence Forces Military Advocate General’s office has launched investigations into a number of individual incidents of alleged wrongdoing, the testimonies raise wider questions over policies under which the war was conducted.
Post-conflict briefings to soldiers suggest that the high death toll & destruction were treated as “achievements” by officers who judged the attrition would keep Gaza “quiet for 5 years”.
The tone, according to one sergeant, was set before the ground offensive into Gaza that began on 17 July last year in pre-combat briefings that preceded the entry of 6 reinforced brigades into Gaza.
“[It] took place during training at Tze’elim, before entering Gaza, with the commander of the armoured battalion to which we were assigned,” recalled a sergeant, one of dozens of Israeli soldiers who have described how the war was fought last summer in the coastal strip.
“[The commander] said: ‘We don’t take risks. We do not spare ammo. We unload, we use as much as possible.’”
“The rules of engagement [were] pretty identical,” added another sergeant who served in a mechanised infantry unit in Deir al-Balah. “Anything inside [the Gaza Strip] is a threat."
The area has to be ‘sterilised,’ empty of people – & if we don’t see someone waving a white flag, screaming: “I give up” or something – then he’s a threat & there’s authorisation to open fire ... The saying was: ‘There’s no such thing there as a person who is uninvolved.’ In that situation, anyone there is involved.”
“The rules of engagement for soldiers advancing on the ground were: open fire, open fire everywhere, first thing when you go in,” recalled another soldier who served during the ground operation in Gaza City. The assumption being that the moment we went in [to the Gaza Strip], anyone who dared poke his head out was a terrorist.”
Soldiers were also encouraged to treat individuals who came too close or watched from windows or other vantage points as “scouts” who could be killed regardless of whether there was hard evidence they were spotting for Hamas or other militant groups. “If it looks like a man, shoot. It was simple: you’re in a motherfucking combat zone,” said a sergeant who served in an infantry unit in the northern Gaza strip.
“A few hours before you went in the whole area was bombed, if there’s anyone there who doesn’t clearly look innocent, you apparently need to shoot that person.” Defining ‘innocent’ he added: “If you see the person is less than 1.40 metres tall or if you see it’s a lady ... If it’s a man you shoot.”
In at least one instance described by soldiers, being female did not help 2 women who were killed because one had a mobile phone. A soldier described the incident: “After the commander told the tank commander to go scan that place, & 3 tanks went to check [the bodies] ... it was 2 women, over the age of 30 ... unarmed. They were listed as terrorists. They were fired at. So of course they must have been terrorists.”
The testimonies raise questions whether Israel fully met its obligations to protect civilians in a conflict area from unnecessary harm, requiring it not only to distinguish between civilians & combatants but also ensure that when using force, where there is the risk of civilian harm, that it is “proportionate”.
“One of the main threads in the testimonies,” said Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer & legal adviser to Breaking the Silence, “is the presumption that despite the fact that the battle was being waged in urban area – & one of most densely populated in the world – no civilians would be in the areas they entered.”
That presumption, say soldiers, was sustained by virtue of warnings to Palestinians to leave their homes & neighbourhoods delivered in leaflets dropped by aircraft & in text & phone messages which meant – in the IDF’s interpretation – that anyone who remained was not a civilian.
Even at the time that view was deeply controversial because – says Sfard & other legal experts interviewed – it reinterpreted international law regarding the duty of protection for areas containing civilians.
Sfard added: “We are not talking about a [deliberate] decision to kill civilians. But to say the rules of engagement were lax gives them too much credit. They allowed engagement in almost any circumstances, unless there was a felt to be a risk to an IDF soldier.”
If the rules of engagement were highly permissive, other soldiers say that they also detected a darker mood in their units that further coloured the way that soldiers behaved. “The motto guiding lots of people was: ‘Let’s show them,’ recalls a lieutenant who served in the Givati Brigade in Rafah. “It was evident that was a starting point. Lots of guys who did their reserve duty with me don’t have much pity towards [the Palestinians].”
He added: “There were a lot of people there who really hate Arabs. Really, really hate Arabs. You could see the hate in their eyes.”
A second lieutenant echoed his comments. “You could feel there was a radicalisation in the way the whole thing was conducted. The discourse was extremely rightwing ... [And] the very fact that [Palestinians were] described as ‘uninvolved’ rather than as civilians, & the desensitisation to the surging number of dead on the Palestinian side. It doesn’t matter whether they’re involved or not … that’s something that troubles me.”
And the testimonies, too, suggest breaches of the IDF’s own code of ethics – The Spirit of the IDF – which insists: “IDF soldiers will not use their weapons & force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, & will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity & property.”
Contrary to that, however, testimonies describe how soldiers randomly shelled buildings either to no obvious military purpose or for revenge.
One sergeant who served in a tank in the centre of the Gaza Strip recalls: “A week or two after we entered the Gaza Strip & we were all firing a lot when there wasn’t any need for it – just for the sake of firing – a member of our company was killed.
“The company commander came over to us & told us that one guy was killed due to such-and-such, & he said: ‘Guys, get ready, get in your tanks, & we’ll fire a barrage in memory of our comrade” … My tank went up to the post – a place from which I can see targets – can see buildings – [and] fired at them, & the platoon commander says: ‘OK guys, we’ll now fire in memory of our comrade’ & we said OK.”
How Israeli forces used artillery & mortars in Gaza, says Breaking the Silence, has raised other concerns beyond either the rules of engagement or the actions of specific units.
According to the group’s research during the war, the Israeli military operated 2 different sets of rules for how close certain weapons could be fired to Israeli soldiers & Palestinian civilians.
Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of Breaking the Silence, & himself a former soldier, explains: “What our research during this project uncovered was that there were 3 designated ‘Operational Levels’ during the conflict – numbered 1 to 3. What the operational level was was set higher up the chain of command. Above the level of the Gaza division. What those levels do is designate the likelihood of civilian casualties from weapons like 155mm artillery & bombs from ‘low’ damage to civilians to ‘high’.
“What we established was that for artillery fire in operational levels 2 & 3 Israeli forces were allowed to fire much closer to civilians than they were to friendly Israeli forces.”
Ahead of the conflict – in which 34,000 shells were fired into Gaza, 19,000 of them explosive – artillery & air liaison officers had been supplied with a list of sensitive sites to which fire was not to be directed within clear limits of distance. These included hospitals & UN schools being used as refugee centres, even in areas where evacuation had been ordered.
“Even then,” explains Shaul, “we have a testimony we took that a senior brigade commander issued order how to get around that, instructing that the unit fired first outside of the protected area & then calling for correction fire on to the location that they wanted to hit.
“He said: “If you go on the radio & ask to hit this building, we have to say no. But if you give a target 200 metres outside then you can ask for correction. Only thing that is recorded is the first target not the correction fire.”
And in the end, despite the high number of civilian casualties, the debriefings treated the destruction as an accomplishment that would discourage Hamas in the future.
“You could say they went over most of the things viewed as accomplishments,” said a Combat Intelligence Corps sergeant. “ “They spoke about numbers: 2,000 dead & 11,000 wounded, half a million refugees, decades worth of destruction. Harm to lots of senior Hamas members & to their homes, to their families. These were stated as accomplishments so that no one would doubt that what we did during this period was meaningful.
“They spoke of a five-year period of quiet (in which there would be no hostilities between Israel & Hamas) when in fact it was a 72-hour ceasefire, & at the end of those 72 hours they were firing again.”
Without responding to the specific allegations, the Israeli military said: “The IDF is committed to properly investigating all credible claims raised via media, NGOs, & official complaints concerning IDF conduct during operation Protective Edge, in as serious a manner as possible.
“It should be noted that following Operation Protective Edge, thorough investigations were carried out, & soldiers & commanders were given the opportunity to present any complaint. Exceptional incidents were then transferred to the military advocate general for further inquiry.”
A good opinion piece. Nothing much to say for me than to highlight the fact that almost 1100 Americans were apparently killed by cops in 2014. And Americans (with people in other developed countries) think the West is "civilized".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Scott, a retired Coast Guard sailor, was stopped by the North Charleston police for a broken taillight, & was dead moments later. He was shot in the back. One more name, one more civilian killed by American exceptionalism.
No one is sure exactly how many people die at the hands of the police in the US every year. Last month, a White House task force created by President Barack Obama in the wake of the riots in Ferguson, Mo., recommended that the federal government should try to count, by collecting these data from local police forces. Notionally, the FBI already has this responsibility & it reports that the number hovers around 400 deaths per year. But an online effort to collect media accounts of fatal police encounters, & to crowd-source the fact-checking, has arrived at a much more grim & more widely accepted figure: more than 1,100 killed in 2014.
There are many factors that help to explain why American police kill civilians at a dramatically higher rate than in any other developed country, but 3 deserve special attention as being unique to the United States.
First, there are more guns per capita in the US than in any other country in the world. Estimates vary from 270 million to 310 million legal & illegal guns in circulation. This provides almost one gun for every man, woman & child. A recent study in the American Journal of Public Health reported that 1 in 3 households contains a gun. This is down from 1 in 2 in the 1970s, but gun ownership is still 35% higher than the next-highest country: Serbia.
This directly changes the way that American police forces operate. With so many civilians carrying guns, is it surprising that the police shoot first & ask questions later? In fact, American police are at relatively more peril than their counterparts elsewhere. According to the FBI (so perhaps take this with a grain of salt), approximately 50 officers are “feloniously killed” in the line of duty each year.
This has, understandably, created a police culture that is both defensive & aggressive. One small example that illustrates this involves car chases. In the United Kingdom, police cars box in fleeing vehicles & use “rolling roadblocks” to force them to stop. But American police, assuming all suspects are armed, use the more violent & potentially lethal “PIT manoeuvre” to swerve into the rear bumper of the car being chased, sending it crashing off the road.
The second factor is that America remains one of the most racially divided countries in the world. Last year, the Public Religion Research Institute released a study showing that the average white American has 91 times more white friends than black ones. In fact, three-quarters of whites don’t even have 1 black friend. This racial divide has real consequences. For most white cops, their references for understanding black Americans must come from second-hand sources or popular media; in other words, from rumour & rap songs. This is something that needs to be considered when trying to understand why young, black males are 21 times more likely to be shot by the police than their white counterparts, as revealed by the analysis of independent news organization ProPublica.
The third uniquely American factor is the embattled-hero mythology that surrounds the police. In no country are the cops as lionized as they are in the US. Not even Canadians, who place the “Mounties” at the centre of their national identity, elevate the police to such heights. From The Lone Ranger to Hill Street Blues & CSI: Miami, American culture has constructed a pervasive narrative of the imperilled but noble police officer, courageously risking his life every day on the thin blue line between civilization & murderous chaos.
But this portrayal is very misleading. In reality, America is not being threatened by criminal anarchy. While the number of civilians being shot by police has never been higher, incidents of violent crime have dropped more than 50% since the 1990s. Yet local police increasingly arm themselves with preposterously lethal equipment. Consider the small town of Sweetwater, Fla. It has a population of only 13,000, slightly smaller than that of Kenora, Ont. Yet the local police force has its own SWAT team, a mine-resistant armoured vehicle, a “commando” armoured car, 4 light attack helicopters, 20 M16 machine guns & a grenade launcher. These weapons were never designed to “serve & protect”; they are only suited for killing & conquering.
And the myth of heroism? In spite of all the guns, being a policeman in America is actually a relatively safe profession. Loggers, roofers, carpenters, farmers, construction labourers, even garbagemen, are far more likely to be killed on the job. But when they die in the service of the community, there are no televised funerals, no flag-draped coffins.
Alexis de Tocqueville was right when he wrote about American exceptionalism in 1835. It is a remarkable nation with countless unique qualities that other countries struggle to emulate. But it has uniquely dangerous problems, too, which can combine into toxic moments, such as the one we watched last week, as Walter Scott ran away, stumbled, then fell, 6 bullets in his back.
This is something happening in all over the world. After all, what one can expect in regards to the treatment of the poor when the poor are being treated like this in the so-called developed & "civilized" world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strapped for cash after the 2008 financial crisis, local governments are bilking the poor through elaborate schemes of “offender-financed criminal justice services,” according to a new report by the Institute of Policy Studies.
The report argues that while there has always been prejudice & stigma about poverty in the US, the criminal justice system expanded misdemeanor charges in the midst of the financial crisis, which led to an increase in fees, fines & court charges that can be levied.
“As state & local budgets were squeezed following the 2008 recession, local authorities all over the country levied more fines & fees on those people least able to pay – & aggressively pursued them,” said Karen Dolan, an IPS fellow & lead author of the report, titled, ‘The Poor Get Prison: The Alarming Spread of Criminalization of Poverty.’
These increases also aligned with the privatization of probation services in operating jails & prisons. The report, for the first time brings, together disparate news stories & studies that illustrate the broad movement underway that involves criminalizing poor people & trapping them in the criminal justice system for such errant behavior as truancy, not paying parking fines or sleeping on a park bench.
The report refers to a state-by-state investigation by National Public Radio into the fines, which found that since 2010, 48 states have increased criminal & civil court fees as governments passed many of the costs of running the criminal justice system on to defendants.
“…If a person is not able to afford the full amount of the fine or debt, they are permitted to make monthly installments. But on top of this, they often face additional fees linked to privatized probation services,” said the report.
These costs could include payment for a public defender, room & board during lock up, probation & parole supervision, & even the cost of an electronic monitor.
“When they are unable to pay, they are often placed in jail or prison with additional fines levied. It is an endless & vicious cycle targeting an already victimized sector of the population,” the report adds.
The report said the NPR investigation found that in 1991, 25% of inmates reported owing court-imposed costs, restitution fines & fees. By 2004, that number increased to 66%. Currently it is estimated that 80% to 85% of inmates leave prison with this kind of debt.
“Even after their debt is paid, these can people face discrimination in employment, housing, & social services because of the jail time they racked up when they were unable to pay,” said Dolan.
Apart from targeting the poor with fines, & the resurgence of a “debtors’ prisons,” the report shows increased arrests against homeless people, as well as those feeding the homeless, & suggests that governments are criminalizing life-sustaining activities such as sleeping in public when no shelter is available.
According to another report from New York's Coalition for the Homeless released on Tuesday, 60,000 people are sleeping in city shelters every night – almost double the amount since 2004. About 25,000 are children & one-third of those families are in the shelter system following evictions from their homes.
The report also notices an increase “in the practice of Civil Asset Forfeiture when law enforcement confiscate property they assert it has been involved in certain criminal activity, even if the owner of the property is innocent.”
The report comes on the heels of a Justice Department investigation into Ferguson, Missouri, police & court system, which found a pattern of structural abuse. In a city of 21,000 people, 16,000 had outstanding arrest warrants. The investigation found the city prioritized aggressive revenue collection over public safety, along with evidence of unconstitutional policing, violations of due process & racial bias against the majority black population.
According to an investigation by NPR, the City of Ferguson collected $2.6 million in such fines & fees in 2013, most of them for traffic violations & other low-level offenses. It was the second-largest source of income for the city.
