RichardAzzouz

Amnesty International USA has called on the U.S. to immediately suspend weapons transfers to Israeli forces in a new report finding that Israel has repeatedly committed egregious violations of international law using U.S.-made weapons fired on Gaza and beyond. The report finds that, over the past seven months, Israeli forces have used U.S. weapons like JDAMs, small diameter bombs and white phosphorus shells in attacks that have violated human rights law in their injuring and killing of civilians. This includes two Israeli strikes in October using U.S.-made JDAMs dropped on residences in Gaza that killed 43 civilians, according to Amnesty International USA, and four Israeli strikes between December and January in the supposed “safe zone” of Rafah that killed 95 civilians, with at least one munition used in these attacks being a Boeing-made small diameter bomb. UN Official Says Clearing Gaza of Unexploded Bombs Could Take 14 Years There is currently 40 million tons of debris in Gaza, a UN Mine Action Service official said. By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUTApril 29, 2024 Amnesty International USA urges officials to stop sending weapons to Israel or else continue complicity in atrocities being committed by Israeli forces across the Middle East. “It’s shocking that the Biden administration continues to hold that the government of Israel is not violating international humanitarian law with U.S.-provided weapons when our research shows otherwise and international law experts disagree,” said Amnesty International USA National Director for Government Relations Amanda Klasing in a statement. “President Biden must end U.S. complicity with the government of Israel’s grave violations of international law and immediately suspend the transfer of weapons to the government of Israel.” The report further details numerous instances of Israeli forces committing violations of international law in which the group couldn’t directly identify the use of U.S. weapons, but that demonstrate the risk of U.S. weapons being used in such military incursions. In one instance, Israeli forces killed 46 civilians, including a three-month-old baby, in two separate strikes on shelters in central Gaza in October. The group said it found no evidence of military targets at the sites of the attacks, meaning that they were likely “indiscriminate attacks or direct attacks on civilians or civilian objects and must be investigated as war crimes.” Other moves, like Israel’s forced evacuation notices with only 24 hours’ warning, constituted “declar[ing] an entire region a military target” and in some cases utilized their blockade of humanitarian aid corridors as “a form of blackmailing residents into leaving.” “The evidence is clear and overwhelming: the government of Israel is using U.S.-made weapons in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, and in a manner that is inconsistent with U.S. law and policy,” Klasing said.

Despite the weakness of its authority, the 'Alawi dynasty distinguished itself in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by maintaining Morocco’s independence while other states in the region succumbed to French or British domination. However, in the second part of the nineteenth century, Morocco’s weakness and instability invited European intervention to protect threatened investments and to demand economic concessions. Following the Hispano-Moroccan War of 1859–1860, Spain obtained the recognition by Morocco of its perpetual sovereignty over Ceuta, Melilla and the Chafarinas Islands as well as of the territory of Ifni. The first years of the twentieth century witnessed a rush of diplomatic maneuvering through which the European powers, France in particular, furthered their interests in North Africa.[13] French activity in Morocco began at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1904, the French government was trying to establish a protectorate over Morocco and had managed to sign two bilateral secret agreements with Britain (8 April 1904, see Entente cordiale) and Spain (7 October 1904), which guaranteed the support of the powers in question in this endeavor. That same year, France sponsored the creation of the Moroccan Debt Administration in Tangier. France and Spain secretly partitioned the territory of the sultanate, with Spain receiving concessions in the far north and south of the country.[14] First Moroccan Crisis: March 1905 – May 1906 Main articles: First Moroccan Crisis and Algeciras Conference The First Moroccan Crisis took place owing to the imperial rivalries of the great powers, in this case, between Germany on one side and France, with British support, on the other. Germany took immediate diplomatic action to block the new accord from going into effect, including the dramatic visit of Wilhelm II to Tangier on 31 March 1905. Kaiser Wilhelm tried to get Morocco's support if they went to war with France or Britain, and gave a speech expressing support for Moroccan independence, which amounted to a provocative challenge to French influence in Morocco.[15] In 1906, the Algeciras Conference was held to settle the dispute. Germany accepted an agreement in which France agreed to yield control of the Moroccan police, but otherwise retained effective control of Moroccan political and financial affairs. Although the Algeciras Conference temporarily solved the First Moroccan Crisis it only worsened international tensions between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente.[16] French invasion

First Amendment Primary tabs Overview The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. Freedom of Religion Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." However, some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech may be exercised in a direct (words) or a symbolic (actions) way. Freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for interference with the right of free speech when it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech, and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place. Despite the popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general. Right to Assemble / Right to Petition The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedom of assembly is recognized as a human right under article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. It does not include a right of social association. The government may prohibit people from knowingly associating with groups that engage in and promote illegal activities. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the basis of an individual's current or past membership in a particular group. There are exceptions to this rule where the Court finds that governmental interests in disclosure/registration outweigh interference with First Amendment rights. The government may also, generally, not compel individuals to express themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to particular associations or groups. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through litigation or other governmental action. It works with the right of assembly by allowing people to join together and seek change from the government. Federal Material U.S. Constitution First Amendment Fifth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment Freedom of Expression: Is There a Difference Between Speech and Press? Religion and Expression Obscenity Right of Association Federal Judicial Decisions Supreme Court: Historic Constitutional Law Decisions Recent First Amendment Decisions - Religion, Press, Speech Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. LII Supreme Court Bulletin State Material State Judicial Decisions N.Y. Court of Appeals: First Amendment Decisions Appellate Decisions from Other States International Material Conventions and Treaties Human Rights Treaties Key Internet Sources The First Amendment Encyclopedia (Middle Tennessee State University) Freedom of Expression (National Endowment for the Arts) Freedom Forum First Amendment Center EFF Legal Guide for Bloggers LII Sitewide: First Amendment Supreme Court Cases Overview 2000 – 2019 Additional Topics Category: Individual Rights Category: Constitutional Law [Last updated in December of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team] wex CIVICS human rights the Constitution government constitutional law individual rights wex articles wex definitions Español

Wasting my time with the Moroccan Slaves!

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ETHNIC CLEANSING AND GENOCIDE The United Nations (U.N.) first termed ‘genocide’ in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, while ‘ethnic cleansing,’ on the other hand, is not recognized as a crime under international law (United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect). The lines between the ethnic cleansing and genocide can become blurred; however, when it comes to the international community taking action to mediate in a crime, the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide needs to be understood. Genocide Genocide, in the Convention, means “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Therefore, under international law, genocide is a punishable crime. Any person found guilty of carrying out genocide will be tried by a tribunal of the state where the genocide was committed or an international tribunal. Ethnic Cleansing Ethnic cleansing is the process of removing particular groups from a specific area based on race, nationality, religion and other identifying principles. While ethnic cleansing doesn’t, by definition, involve the intent to kill a group, the resettlement of said people typically results in the loss of lives; genocide, however, focuses on the “intent to destroy.” Ethnic cleansing is considered a crime against humanity. It has not been written and signed in any U.N. treaty, which means Member States do not have to protect those who have fallen victim. Critics of the terms “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” say that many state governments will use the initial phrase — even in incidents that could arguably be classified as genocide — in order to escape the necessity of using state resources and taking action against the perpetrating nation. Responsibility to Protect International law, in general, is a tricky topic when it comes to holding perpetrators accountable and protecting human rights. However, there is discussion on the national and international level (especially within the U.N.) to improve global law enforcement mechanisms. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine says that “if a state is unable to protect its own population from “genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity” then the internationality community must do something.” R2P was adopted at the World Summit in 2005. It aims to hold member states accountable for the equal and moral protection of their own populations and all populations at risk of genocide and other mass atrocity crimes. Discussion is increasing to meet the needs of millions of individuals that have suffered (and are suffering) from ethnic cleansing and genocide in the world today.

The hypocrites Islamist's movements have always capitalized on people's miseries! Even now, the cowards could not dare to criticize the corrupt Arab's tyrants regimes of colonial's dogs, the self-serving traitors in complicities with the Europeans and the American's financial institutions. In their collectives' complicities with the Zionists massacring, ethnic cleansing, and genocides of cardinal standard, never witnessed by historical chronologies of atrocities, as we have been made to witness in 2024! Yet the opportunists continue to lie, and to scam the naive in a Complicite cowardice of coward traitors. The right way about their fiasco, id for us to stand as one, and demand investigations, judgements, and redress. Stop the opportunists from capitalizing and boosting above the Zionist's victim's graves. Idiots! No justice no peace. Free the Rif too from the Moroccan apartheid of Arab's brutal tyranny!

Pro-Israel Lobby Faces Challanges, after the war crimes, and genocides of demonic proportion. The AIPAC organization, should be judged for its national treason, corruptions, and complicities. The deceptive scamming terrorist organization of evil accomplices.

Focused attention. Focusing your attention is one of the most important elements of meditation. Focusing your attention is what helps free your mind from the many things that cause stress and worry. You can focus your attention on things such as a certain object, an image, a mantra or even your breathing. Relaxed breathing. This technique involves deep, even-paced breathing using the muscle between your chest and your belly, called the diaphragm muscle, to expand your lungs. The purpose is to slow your breathing, take in more oxygen, and reduce the use of shoulder, neck and upper chest muscles while breathing so that you breathe better. A quiet setting. If you're a beginner, meditation may be easier if you're in a quiet spot. Aim to have fewer things that can distract you, including no television, computers or cellphones. As you get more skilled at meditation, you may be able to do it anywhere. This includes high-stress places, such as a traffic jam, a stressful work meeting or a long line at the grocery store. This is when you can get the most out of meditation. A comfortable position. You can practice meditation whether you're sitting, lying down, walking, or in other positions or activities. Just try to be comfortable so that you can get the most out of your meditation. Aim to keep good posture during meditation. Open attitude. Let thoughts pass through your mind without judging them. Everyday ways to practice meditation Don't let the thought of meditating the "right" way add to your stress. If you choose to, you can attend special meditation centers or group classes led by trained instructors. But you also can practice meditation easily on your own. There are apps to use too. And you can make meditation as formal or informal as you like. Some people build meditation into their daily routine. For example, they may start and end each day with an hour of meditation. But all you really need is a few minutes a day for meditation. Here are some ways you can practice meditation on your own, whenever you choose: Breathe deeply. This is good for beginners because breathing is a natural function. Focus all your attention on your breathing. Feel your breath and listen to it as you inhale and exhale through your nostrils. Breathe deeply and slowly. When your mind wanders, gently return your focus to your breathing. Scan your body. When using this technique, focus attention on each part of your body. Become aware of how your body feels. That might be pain, tension, warmth or relaxation. Mix body scanning with breathing exercises and think about breathing heat or relaxation into and out of the parts of your body. Repeat a mantra. You can create your own mantra. It can be religious or not. Examples of religious mantras include the Jesus Prayer in the Christian tradition, the holy name of God in Judaism, or the om mantra of Hinduism, Buddhism and other Eastern religions. Walk and meditate. Meditating while walking is a good and healthy way to relax. You can use this technique anywhere you're walking, such as in a forest, on a city sidewalk or at the mall. When you use this method, slow your walking pace so that you can focus on each movement of your legs or feet. Don't focus on where you're going. Focus on your legs and feet. Repeat action words in your mind such as "lifting," "moving" and "placing" as you lift each foot, move your leg forward and place your foot on the ground. Focus on the sights, sounds and smells around you. Pray. Prayer is the best known and most widely used type of meditation. Spoken and written prayers are found in most faith traditions. You can pray using your own words or read prayers written by others. Check the self-help section of your local bookstore for examples. Talk with your rabbi, priest, pastor or other spiritual leader about possible resources. Read and reflect. Many people report that they benefit from reading poems or sacred texts and taking a few moments to think about their meaning. You also can listen to sacred music, spoken words, or any music that relaxes or inspires you. You may want to write your thoughts in a journal or discuss them with a friend or spiritual leader. Focus your love and kindness. In this type of meditation, you think of others with feelings of love, compassion and kindness. This can help increase how connected you feel to others. Building your meditation skills Don't judge how you meditate. That can increase your stress. Meditation takes practice. It's common for your mind to wander during meditation, no matter how long you've been practicing meditation. If you're meditating to calm your mind and your mind wanders, slowly return to what you're focusing on. Try out ways to meditate to find out what types of meditation work best for you and what you enjoy doing. Adapt meditation to your needs as you go. Remember, there's no right way or wrong way to meditate. What matters is that meditation helps you reduce your stress and feel better overall.

Protesting against the Moroccan dictator in the White House D.C

A boycott is an act of nonviolent, voluntary abstention from a product, person, organization, or country as an expression of protest. People engage in boycotts for various reasons, including moral, social, political, or environmental concerns. The primary purpose of a boycott is to inflict economic loss on the target or to express moral outrage, often with the aim of compelling the target to change an objectionable behavior1. The term “boycott” originated during the Irish “Land War” in the late 19th century. It was named after Captain Charles Boycott, an agent of an absentee landlord in Ireland. The Irish Land League organized social ostracism against Boycott when he attempted to evict tenants from their land. As a result, local workers stopped working for him, businesses ceased trading with him, and even the postman refused to deliver his mail. The word “boycott” quickly gained prominence and has since been used globally to describe organized isolation as a form of protest1. In summary, a boycott serves as a powerful tool to express dissent, influence change, and hold individuals, companies, or nations accountable for objectionable actions or policies.

A definition of lying: Lying means telling another person something the we believe to be false, with the intention of making the other person believe that this statement is true. According to this definition: There must be another person to which one is telling the lie; The speaker must believe that they are saying something that is not true; There must be an intention to deceive the other person. These are important considerations, because, for example, if the speaker says something that is not true, but they do believe it to be true, then they are not telling a lie. Your friend who thinks that he has been visited by aliens in his sleep last week is not lying to you, if he really believes that the aliens came for him. A little more tricky is the last requirement: The liar must have the intention of making the other person believe that the statement is true. Is a movie about James Bond a lie? Although it depicts events that never happened and the people who made it also knew very well that 007 is fictional, we would not say that the filmmakers are lying to us. This is because we all know that this is a fictional story. The filmmakers do not try to sell it as a documentary of real events. They intend to entertain the audience, not to deceive them into believing that James Bond exists. On the other hand, a “documentary” about aliens that tries to convince the viewer of their existence by faking photographs and dressing up children in aluminium foil does constitute a deception. The aim of the filmmakers in this case is to deceive the viewer. Lying means telling another person something the we believe to be false, with the intention of making the other person believe that this statement is true. Tweet! Lying and deception Deception is a wider concept than lying. To deceive means to cause someone to believe something that the deceiver believes to be false. Deception, as opposed to lying, is not restricted to statements. I can deceive someone by planting fake evidence, for example. Or I can deceive by doing nothing. A real estate agent who knows that the government is planning to build a highway close to a house and does not tell the buyer about it, is deceiving the buyer without actually doing anything. To deceive means to cause someone to believe something that the deceiver believes to be false. Tweet! When is lying permissible? Lying and deception may sometimes be morally permissible. Different moral theories have different opinions on this. Utilitarianism would say that an action is permissible if the sum of the benefit it creates is greater than the sum of harm. Sometimes, lying or deception can be more beneficial than harmful: for example, if you deceive a burglar into believing that your house is protected by installing fake security cameras on the outside, then this is clearly a permissible deception. “White lies” are another permissible form of lie. If you don’t want to visit your colleague this afternoon, you might tell them that you have another appointment, instead of telling them directly that you are bored in their company. In these cases, telling the truth would be more harmful than lying. Kantian ethics (named after philosopher Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804) emphasises that we should always act rationally. This means that we should not choose actions that would become impossible or meaningless if everyone performed them. Lying, in any form and for any purpose, is such an action. Lying only works when everyone generally tends to tell the truth. If all people were lying, then nobody would believe anything they are told, and then lying would make no sense: lying is self-defeating. Also, Kant says that we should treat other people as ends, meaning that we should always consider their wishes and choices and take them seriously, rather than merely using others for our own goals. In the case of the white lie, I would have to consider whether the person I’m lying to would actually prefer to know the truth. It is not entirely clear whether my colleague, whom I don’t want to meet, might prefer to be deceived about whether I like to meet them or not. In the case of the burglar, it seems clear that he would prefer to know the truth about my fake cameras, so that he can go on with his business and break into my house. But there’s a catch: the burglar himself is not treating me as an end in the first place. He is not respecting my wish to not be his victim. Therefore, he is the one who is first violating Kant’s ethics by trying to rob my house. And therefore, I am justified in preventing this immoral action against me. Kant’s Ethics: What is a Categorical Imperative? Recommended for you: Kant’s Ethics: What is a Categorical Imperative? Kant’s ethics is based on the value of one’s motivation and two so-called Categorical Imperatives, or general rules that must apply to every action. For Aristotle’s virtue ethics, lying is clearly not a virtue; honesty is. But things are more complex. Overdoing honesty to the point where it becomes harmful to the honest person as well as to others is not a good course of action either. So Aristotle would not say that I have to tell the burglar that my cameras are fake. All things considered, by deceiving the burglar, I have reached a situation where I am not less virtuous (since protecting oneself from immoral actions is not a lack of virtue), and I also prevented the burglar from doing something bad. In a sense, I have promoted the virtuous choice of the burglar by scaring him off. Whether this would apply to other lies and deception can, according to Aristotle, be judged only separately for each individual case. Aristotelian ethics does not provide general and abstract rules of conduct, but emphasises that the agent will have to evaluate every situation using their best ability, utilising their knowledge, experience and judgement. The overarching goal is always to be a virtuous person, rather than, say, to benefit oneself at the cost of others. For example, I might be poor and not have enough to eat and to feed my child at the same time. So I might give the last food I have to my child. If the child asks me if I am not hungry myself, I might lie and say that I have already eaten. In this case, my lie is an expression of a virtuous and noble state of mind and virtue ethics would probably not object to it.

War crimes are violations of the laws of war that result in individual criminal responsibility for actions committed by combatants during armed conflicts. These actions include: Intentionally Killing Civilians: Deliberately causing the death of non-combatants. Intentionally Killing Prisoners of War: Targeting and killing captured enemy soldiers who are no longer actively fighting. Torture: Inflicting severe physical or mental suffering on prisoners or civilians. Taking Hostages: Holding individuals captive to gain an advantage. Unnecessarily Destroying Civilian Property: Damaging civilian infrastructure without military necessity. Deception by Perfidy: Using treacherous tactics, such as pretending to surrender and then attacking. Wartime Sexual Violence: Committing sexual crimes against civilians or prisoners. Pillaging: Looting and plundering civilian property. Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing: Attempting to systematically eliminate a particular group. Granting No Quarter Despite Surrender: Refusing to spare lives after an enemy’s surrender. Conscription of Children in the Military: Forcing children into armed conflict. Flouting Legal Distinctions of Proportionality and Military Necessity: Ignoring rules about the use of force. The concept of war crimes emerged from international law, including the Lieber Code during the American Civil War and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. After World War II, the Nuremberg trials established principles of international criminal law, and the Geneva Conventions defined new war crimes. In recent times, international courts have extended these categories to apply to civil wars as wel

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. The term was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin. It is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) of 1948 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group's conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1] The preamble to the CPPCG states that "genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world", and it also states that "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity."[1] Definitions of genocide See also: Genocide definitions The debate continues over what legally constitutes genocide. One definition is any conflict that the International Criminal Court has so designated. Mohammed Hassan Kakar argues that the definition should include political groups or any group so defined by the perpetrator.[2] He prefers the definition from Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, which defines genocide as "a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group so defined by the perpetrator."[3] In literature, some scholars have popularly emphasized the role that the Soviet Union played in excluding political groups from the international definition of genocide, which is contained in the Genocide Convention of 1948,[4] and in particular they have written that Joseph Stalin may have feared greater international scrutiny of the political killings that occurred in the country, such as the Great Purge;[5] however, this claim is not supported by evidence. The Soviet view was shared and supported by many diverse countries, and they were also in line with Raphael Lemkin's original conception,[a] and it was originally promoted by the World Jewish Congress.[7] Genocides before World War I Main article: Genocides in history (before World War I) Analysis of genocides before World War I is the result of modern studies that apply objectivity and fact, while previous accounts of genocides mostly aimed to emphasize one's own superiority. According to Frank Chalk, Helen Fein, and Kurt Jonassohn, if a dominant group of people had little in common with a marginalized group of people, it was easy for the dominant group to define the marginalized group as a subhuman group; the marginalized group might be labeled a threat that must be eliminated.[8] While the concept of genocide was formulated by Lemkin in the mid-20th century, the expansion of various European colonial powers, such as the British and the Spanish Empires, and the subsequent establishment of colonies on indigenous territory frequently involved acts of genocidal violence against indigenous groups in the Americas (including Brazil, Paraguay, and the United States), Australia, Africa, and Asia.[9] According to Lemkin, colonization was in itself "intrinsically genocidal", and he saw this genocide as a two-stage process, the first being the destruction of the indigenous population's way of life. In the second stage, the newcomers impose their way of life on the indigenous group.[10][11] According to David Maybury-Lewis, imperial and colonial forms of genocide are enacted in two main ways, either through the deliberate clearing of territories of their original inhabitants to make them exploitable for purposes of resource extraction or colonial settlements, or through enlisting indigenous peoples as forced laborers in colonialist or imperialist projects of resource extraction.[12] The designation of specific events as genocidal is often controversial.[13] During the 17th century Beaver Wars, the Iroquois destroyed several large tribal confederacies, including the Mohicans, Huron, Neutral, Erie, Susquehannock, and northern Algonquins, with the extreme brutality and exterminatory nature of the mode of warfare practised by the Iroquois causing some historians to label these events as acts of genocide.[14] Genocides from World War I through World War II Main article: Genocides in history (World War I through World War II) In 1915, one year after the outbreak of World War I, the concept of crimes against humanity was introduced into international relations for the first time, when the Allies of World War I sent a letter to the government of the Ottoman Empire, a member of the Central Powers, to protest against the late Ottoman genocides that were taking place within the empire, among them, the Armenian genocide, the Assyrian genocide, the Greek genocide, and the Great Famine of Mount Lebanon.[15] The Holocaust, the Nazi genocide of six million European Jews from 1941 to 1945 during the Second World War,[16][17] is the most studied genocide,[18] and it is also a prototype of genocide;[19] one of the most controversial questions among comparative scholars is the question of the Holocaust's uniqueness, which led to the Historikerstreit in West Germany during the 1980s,[20] and whether there exist historical parallels, which critics believe trivializes it.[21] It is considered to be the "worst case" paradigm of genocide.[22] Genocide studies started as a side academic field of Holocaust studies, whose researchers associated genocide with the Holocaust and believed that Raphael Lemkin's definition of genocide was too broad.[19] In 1985, the United Nations' (UN) Whitaker Report cited the massacre of 100,000 to 250,000 Jews in more than 2,000 pogroms which occurred as part of the White Terror during the Russian Civil War as an act of genocide; it also suggested that consideration should be given to ecocide, ethnocide, and cultural genocide.[23] Genocides from 1946 through 1999 Main article: Genocides in history (1946 to 1999) The Genocide Convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951. After the necessary twenty countries became parties to the convention, it came into force as international law on 12 January 1951;[24] however, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council were parties to the treaty, which caused the Convention to languish for over four decades.[25] During the Cold War era, mass atrocities were committed by anti-communist/capitalist regimes,[26][27] as well as by communist regimes,[28] among them the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66, the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, the Cambodian genocide, the 1984 Sikh genocide, the Guatemalan genocide and the East Timor genocide.[29] The Rwandan genocide gave an extra impetus to genocide studies in the 1990s.[30] Genocides after 2000 Main article: Genocides in history (21st century) Skulls of victims of the Rwandan genocide In The Guardian, David Alton, Helen Clark, and Michael Lapsley wrote that the reasons for the Rwandan genocide and crimes such as the Bosnian genocide of the Yugoslav Wars had been analyzed in-depth, and they also stated that genocide prevention had been extensively discussed. They described the analyses as producing "reams of paper [that] were dedicated to analyzing the past and pledging to heed warning signs and prevent genocide."[31] A group of 34 non-governmental organizations and 31 individuals, calling themselves African Citizens, referred to the Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide report prepared by a panel headed by former Botswana president Quett Masire for the Organisation of African Unity, which later became the African Union.[32] African Citizens highlighted the sentences, commenting: "Indisputably, the most important truth that emerges from our investigation is that the Rwandan genocide could have been prevented by those in the international community who had the position and means to do so. ... The world failed Rwanda. ... [The United Nations] simply did not care enough about Rwanda to intervene appropriately."[33] Chidi Odinkalu, former head of the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria, was among those involved with African Citizens.[34] The ongoing Amhara genocide started in the early 1990s with the implementation of ethnic federalism under the TPLF-led ruling, and events of the Northern Ethiopia war (Tigray conflict) since 2020 that intensified the violence further with war crimes committed by the Tigray forces in both the Amhara & Afar regions. On 20 November 2021, Genocide Watch called for genocide in Ethiopia, predicted in the context of the war in Tigray and also the violence across the Oromia, and the Benishangul-Gumuz (Metekel) regions that worsened since 2018.[35] On 21 November, Odinkalu called for genocide prevention, stating: "We need to focus on an urgent programme of Genocide Prevention advocacy on Ethiopia NOW. It may be too late in 2 weeks, guys."[34] On 26 November, African Citizens and Alton, Clark, and Lapsley also called for the predicted genocide to be prevented.[31][33] The Rohingya genocide is an ongoing genocide of the Muslim Rohingya people consisting of arson, rape, ethnic cleansing, and infanticide by the Burmese military. The genocide has so far consisted of two phases so: the first was a military crackdown that occurred from October 2016 to January 2017, and the second has been occurring since August 2017.[36][37] The Chinese government has engaged in a series of human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang.[38] Legislatures in several countries, including Canada,[39] the United Kingdom,[40] and France,[41] have passed non-binding motions describing China's actions as genocide. The United States officially denounced China's treatment of Uyghurs as a genocide.[42] International prosecution Ad hoc tribunals In 1951, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) were parties to the convention, namely France and the Republic of China. The treaty was ratified by the Soviet Union in 1954, the United Kingdom in 1970, the People's Republic of China in 1983 (having replaced the Taiwan-based Republic of China on the UNSC in 1971), and the United States in 1988.[43] In the 1990s, the international law on the crime of genocide began to be enforced.[25] Bosnia and Herzegovina See also: Bosnian genocide and Srebrenica massacre Exhumed mass grave of Srebrenica massacre victims in 2007 In July 1995, Serbian forces killed more than 8,000[44][45][46

A representative government is not inherently a tyranny. Let’s delve into the definitions and concepts to understand why: Tyranny: Historically, tyranny referred to a ruler (a “tyrant”) who lacked legitimacy according to the country’s laws or traditions. Such a ruler did not rightfully inherit their position. In modern times, tyranny is characterized by a government led by an authoritative figure who: Is unfit to rule. Rules in a cruel and oppressive manner. Tyranny often involves infringing upon citizens’ rights and controlling them through fear1. Representative Government: A representative government, such as a democracy, allows citizens to elect representatives who make decisions on their behalf. In the United States, for example, citizens elect officials to represent their interests in government institutions. Representative democracy is constitutional because it operates within the framework of the supreme law (the Constitution) to protect the rights of all people2. Balancing Power: To avoid tyranny, it’s crucial to implement a system of checks and balances. In such a system: Each branch of government keeps the others in check. No single branch wields excessive power. This prevents any one person or group from abusing authority at the expense of citizens. Resistance to Tyranny: People have a right to resist tyranny. This can take the form of: Revolution: Overthrowing a tyrannical government. Historical Examples: The French and American Revolutions were motivated by resistance to tyranny. In summary, a representative government can be constitutional and protective of citizens’ rights, as long as it maintains a balance of power and avoids oppressive rule132.

What is Deception in Psychology? A general definition of deception in psychology is the act of misleading research participants about an experiment's purpose, conditions, or procedures or otherwise manipulating an experiment to control the behavior of the participants with the goal of producing better research results. A person There are two basic reasons that deception might be used in psychological research. Primarily, deception allows researchers to observe the genuine reactions of participants. Participants who have knowledge of the purpose or expected results of an experiment are more likely to act in a way that favors the expected result. Using deception allows researchers to keep participants from understanding the actual purpose of the experiment, which prevents participants from changing their behavior based on their perceptions of the experiment's purpose. A secondary purpose for using deception is to artificially create circumstances or situations that are difficult to study in the real world. If a research team wanted to learn more about the behavior of bystanders who film strangers in distressing situations rather than attempting to help, the researchers may create a fictional situation in order to observe behavior and interview bystanders. A few well-known cases of deception in psychological research are:

The Corrupt criminal clergy.

Silence complicity is a term that refers to the moral responsibility to speak up against human rights abuses or other forms of injustice12. Silence complicity implies that failing to voice one's opposition or dissent is equivalent to agreeing or supporting the wrongdoing23. Silence complicity can apply to individuals or corporations that have the power or influence to put pressure on the perpetrators or protect the victims12.

The prosecuted impoverished abused Berbers of the Rif, Atlas Mountains Moroccans under a Zionist dictatorship deception. The pretending Saints, holy and Divine Jews. Dar al Mahraz, et La Lej Families, passing for Alaouites. The French Jacobite agents, and Zionists collaborators war crimes accomplices

We are living in dark ages as the media, and governments are concerned! Human rights, justice, equality, civility, are the things of the past if we don't pay attention, we will be stripped out of our humanity sooner than you may think!

The prosecuted impoverished abused Berbers of the Rif, Atlas Mountains Moroccans under a Zionist dictatorship deception. The pretending Saints, holy and Divine Jews. Dar al Mahraz, et La Lej Families, passing for Alaouites. The French Jacobite agents, and Zionists collaborators war crimes accomplices

ETHICS AND MORALITY The Tyrant's Handbook We must learn to recognize a tyrant's easy and alluring bag of tricks. KEY POINTS Becoming a tyrannical jerk is easy since arrogance breeds ignorance and ignorance breeds arrogance. To become a tyrant in any context, however local or global, part-time or full-time, people simply pose as heroic no matter what. Tyrants demand that other people attend to the meaning of their words, though they ignore their meanings focused only on connotations. Tyrants are deliberately tone deaf to criticism because they translate all responses to them into evidence of their heroism. You may be surprised to learn that becoming a tyrant is simple. You don’t have to learn new skills; you just have to remove your conscience and you don’t have to do it all at once. No lobotomy required. Once you start becoming a tyrant, your self-awareness, conscience, and powers of reasoning will atrophy and disappear. They’ll no longer be necessary. In fact, they’ll only get in the way. Arrogance breeds ignorance and ignorance breeds arrogance. You’ll have to pretend that you have more self-awareness, conscience, and rationality than everyone else. Don’t worry. Your posture will be a substitute for having them. Being a tyrant is fun and easy so long as people let you get away with it, which many will—if you do it right. Here’s all there is to it. Raise the loudest false alarms. Since desperate times call for desperate measures, declare holy ware and you can get away with murder. Pretend the world is in crisis and you have to save it. Or to keep it local, pretend that your spouse has become evil and you have to heroically rescue yourself from their treachery. One way or another, turn on all the emergency alarms you can imagine. People will back away at the sound of your siren, and your siren will help drown out your conscience. Fake objectivity. Talk like you know for certain and everyone else is just guessing (wrongly): Flatly assume that your rivals are biased. Only you see clearly, objectively. The writing on the wall can only be interpreted one way—your way. Everyone else is delusional. Even if your interpretation is a desperate lie, remember that anything’s possible. Your interpretation could still be true. Therefore it is true. Spin to the max. Exaggerate your fake crisis. Use superlatives. If you say your rivals are the absolute worst, they can’t say you’re worse. Declare your holy war crisis first and loudest. If they retaliate in kind, you can dismiss them as being defensive, just trying to wriggle out of facing facts. Use loaded terms that make you sound perfect and your rivals sound stupid, evil, biased, and weak. Spin their strengths as weaknesses and your weaknesses as strengths. If they succeed in landing an insult, interpret it as a compliment. If they call you an a**hole, wear it like a badge of honor. No matter what, comb all virtue to you and all vice to anyone who doesn’t align with you. Ignore what words mean. Don’t ever think about what words mean, just whether they sound positive or negative. Everything positive is about you. Everything negative is about your rivals. If you have residues of conscience, this may not come naturally. Don’t worry. Once tyranny becomes a reliable habit you’ll stop thinking. Align with the good name against the bad name. Label yourself with the most popular virtue against the most unpopular vice. You’re a patriot; your rivals are traitors. You’re mindful, your rivals are narcissists. You’re with God; your rivals are with the devil. That way, anyone who challenges your authority is attacking virtue itself. Act heroic no matter what. You must keep up the appearance of invincibility always. Never apologize. You are like a God, eternally right, righteous, and mighty. Even when you’re losing, you’re mighty—the martyr hero who is destined to rise again because you’re right and righteous. Cosplay and method act. Dress and act the part of the hero surrounded by evil stupid fools. No matter what your temperament or lifestyle, you can method-act the part. It’s easy. No matter who you are, there’s some Blockbuster movie hero you can pretend you are if you just stop looking at who you really are. Never look at yourself. Tyrants are mindless swellheads, braindead megaphones, robotic crusaders. They take up the most space but no one is home. They can’t see themselves and they refuse to accept that others see them. So speak like you are the absolute authority on your character. Or let others look at you. Pretend that the biggest sin is personal attacks. Never tolerate anyone calling you on your behavior. You are the authority on yourself and on everyone else too. You get to psychologize others; they don’t get to psychologize you. And why? Because you’re objective about everything including yourself. Your rivals are just biased. Remember, you are the supreme judge. You don’t just get to give the authoritative account of what’s true. You are the unbiased supreme judge presiding over all debates you enter. You get to decide what’s permissible evidence in your court. You get to decide what’s being debated and who wins every debate: you. Shame relentlessly. As the one who declares holy war, you are holy and therefore never have to face consequences. No matter how beastly you act, you remain the moral authority. This is the key to getting away with being a tyrant. So long as your rivals still have consciences, you’ll be able to shame them into backing off and giving you free rein. It's all about who gets to lead. People still burdened by conscience will try to reason with you. They’ll enable you by treating you as though you mean what you say. A tyrant’s power comes from getting to steer the debate. You’ll look like a winner if you’ve got the steering wheel and can lead your rivals to any topic you want. article continues after advertisement If you follow these simple steps, most people will despise you but they won’t be able to beat you, and some people, maybe a lot, will align with you because you’ll appear powerful, indomitable. You’ll beat the folks who care about substance and you’ll win the folks who only follow power. You’ll gain more confidence as you go, and soon you’ll be a clueless total jerk who gets away with murder. You’ll be freed from self-doubt, conscience, and introspection. You’ll have faith that the fates have destined you for greatness. Being a tyrant makes you feel like God, which is much more fun than being human, so long as people let you get away with it.

Sanctions The Security Council can take action to maintain or restore international peace and security under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Sanctions measures, under Article 41, encompass a broad range of enforcement options that do not involve the use of armed force. Since 1966, the Security Council has established 31 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the Former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti (2), Angola, Liberia (3), Eritrea/Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire, Iran, Somalia/Eritrea, ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida, Iraq (2), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Lebanon, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Libya (2), the Taliban, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali. Security Council sanctions have taken a number of different forms, in pursuit of a variety of goals. The measures have ranged from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions. The Security Council has applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain terrorism, protect human rights and promote non-proliferation. Sanctions do not operate, succeed or fail in a vacuum. The measures are most effective at maintaining or restoring international peace and security when applied as part of a comprehensive strategy encompassing peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peacemaking. Contrary to the assumption that sanctions are punitive, many regimes are designed to support governments and regions working towards peaceful transition. The Libyan and Guinea-Bissau sanctions regimes all exemplify this approach. Today, there are 15 ongoing sanctions regimes which focus on supporting political settlement of conflicts, nuclear non-proliferation, and counter-terrorism. Each regime is administered by a sanctions committee chaired by a non-permanent member of the Security Council. There are 11 monitoring groups, teams and panels that support the work of 12 of the 15 sanctions committees. The Council applies sanctions with ever-increasing cognisance of the rights of those targeted. In the 2005 World Summit declaration, the General Assembly called on the Security Council, with the support of the Secretary-General, to ensure that fair and clear procedures are in place for the imposition and lifting of sanctions measures. The establishment of a focal point for de-listing, and the Office of the Ombudsperson to the ISIL (Da'esh) & Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee are examples of this approach in practice.

AIPAC, Explained: The Inside Story of America's Powerful and Divisive pro-Israel Lobby The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has clashed with and cosseted, targeted and championed U.S. presidents and politicians, turning Israel into an increasingly partisan issue. Here's what you need to know about AIPAC, the revered, feared and reviled lobbying and political fundraising group poised to play an oversize role in 2024's elections Share in Twitter Share in WhatsApp Gift this article Send in e-mailSend in e-mail Go to comments Print article Save Save article to reading list Zen Read Ben Samuels Washington Get email notification for articles from Ben Samuels Follow Feb 28, 2024 WASHINGTON – Few people are entirely neutral in their assessment of the work and influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Whether revered, feared or reviled, AIPAC is seen by some as an icon of pro-Israel advocacy – or the bogeyman symbolizing everything that's wrong with America's political lobbying and fundraising scene. But no matter how it's characterized, AIPAC's political evolution over the past three years

ETHICS AND MORALITY The Tyrant's Handbook We must learn to recognize a tyrant's easy and alluring bag of tricks. KEY POINTS Becoming a tyrannical jerk is easy since arrogance breeds ignorance and ignorance breeds arrogance. To become a tyrant in any context, however local or global, part-time or full-time, people simply pose as heroic no matter what. Tyrants demand that other people attend to the meaning of their words, though they ignore their meanings focused only on connotations. Tyrants are deliberately tone deaf to criticism because they translate all responses to them into evidence of their heroism. You may be surprised to learn that becoming a tyrant is simple. You don’t have to learn new skills; you just have to remove your conscience and you don’t have to do it all at once. No lobotomy required. Once you start becoming a tyrant, your self-awareness, conscience, and powers of reasoning will atrophy and disappear. They’ll no longer be necessary. In fact, they’ll only get in the way. Arrogance breeds ignorance and ignorance breeds arrogance. You’ll have to pretend that you have more self-awareness, conscience, and rationality than everyone else. Don’t worry. Your posture will be a substitute for having them. Being a tyrant is fun and easy so long as people let you get away with it, which many will—if you do it right. Here’s all there is to it. Raise the loudest false alarms. Since desperate times call for desperate measures, declare holy ware and you can get away with murder. Pretend the world is in crisis and you have to save it. Or to keep it local, pretend that your spouse has become evil and you have to heroically rescue yourself from their treachery. One way or another, turn on all the emergency alarms you can imagine. People will back away at the sound of your siren, and your siren will help drown out your conscience. Fake objectivity. Talk like you know for certain and everyone else is just guessing (wrongly): Flatly assume that your rivals are biased. Only you see clearly, objectively. The writing on the wall can only be interpreted one way—your way. Everyone else is delusional. Even if your interpretation is a desperate lie, remember that anything’s possible. Your interpretation could still be true. Therefore it is true. Spin to the max. Exaggerate your fake crisis. Use superlatives. If you say your rivals are the absolute worst, they can’t say you’re worse. Declare your holy war crisis first and loudest. If they retaliate in kind, you can dismiss them as being defensive, just trying to wriggle out of facing facts. Use loaded terms that make you sound perfect and your rivals sound stupid, evil, biased, and weak. Spin their strengths as weaknesses and your weaknesses as strengths. If they succeed in landing an insult, interpret it as a compliment. If they call you an a**hole, wear it like a badge of honor. No matter what, comb all virtue to you and all vice to anyone who doesn’t align with you. Ignore what words mean. Don’t ever think about what words mean, just whether they sound positive or negative. Everything positive is about you. Everything negative is about your rivals. If you have residues of conscience, this may not come naturally. Don’t worry. Once tyranny becomes a reliable habit you’ll stop thinking. Align with the good name against the bad name. Label yourself with the most popular virtue against the most unpopular vice. You’re a patriot; your rivals are traitors. You’re mindful, your rivals are narcissists. You’re with God; your rivals are with the devil. That way, anyone who challenges your authority is attacking virtue itself. Act heroic no matter what. You must keep up the appearance of invincibility always. Never apologize. You are like a God, eternally right, righteous, and mighty. Even when you’re losing, you’re mighty—the martyr hero who is destined to rise again because you’re right and righteous. Cosplay and method act. Dress and act the part of the hero surrounded by evil stupid fools. No matter what your temperament or lifestyle, you can method-act the part. It’s easy. No matter who you are, there’s some Blockbuster movie hero you can pretend you are if you just stop looking at who you really are. Never look at yourself. Tyrants are mindless swellheads, braindead megaphones, robotic crusaders. They take up the most space but no one is home. They can’t see themselves and they refuse to accept that others see them. So speak like you are the absolute authority on your character. Or let others look at you. Pretend that the biggest sin is personal attacks. Never tolerate anyone calling you on your behavior. You are the authority on yourself and on everyone else too. You get to psychologize others; they don’t get to psychologize you. And why? Because you’re objective about everything including yourself. Your rivals are just biased. Remember, you are the supreme judge. You don’t just get to give the authoritative account of what’s true. You are the unbiased supreme judge presiding over all debates you enter. You get to decide what’s permissible evidence in your court. You get to decide what’s being debated and who wins every debate: you. Shame relentlessly. As the one who declares holy war, you are holy and therefore never have to face consequences. No matter how beastly you act, you remain the moral authority. This is the key to getting away with being a tyrant. So long as your rivals still have consciences, you’ll be able to shame them into backing off and giving you free rein. It's all about who gets to lead. People still burdened by conscience will try to reason with you. They’ll enable you by treating you as though you mean what you say. A tyrant’s power comes from getting to steer the debate. You’ll look like a winner if you’ve got the steering wheel and can lead your rivals to any topic you want. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/jerkology/202109/the-tyrants-handbook

Human Rights advocate.