#they fully support the deaths of civilians as part of a 'right of self protection'

[the-light-of-stars]

It took a while to translate but here is the link to an article that transcribed the German Vice-Chancellor's speech from yesterday evening, in which he makes clear his and the government's stance as completely on the side of Israel, saying that there are no 'both sides' but only one.

Mind, the points made about the horror of antisemitism and how antisemitic bigotry and violence have to be prevented are true, antisemitism is terrible and just like any bigotry cannot be tolerated, however the clearly one sided approach, the criminalisation of anticolonialist/pro-palestinian demonstrations as 'islamistic and glorifying terror' , the clearly biased, racist descriptions as only (!) Hamas' actions as barbaric and 'beastly' while completely endorsing Israel's attack on civilians as not only justified but as a safety measure whose support must be germany's main goal, the downplaying of palestinian deaths as sad but not as important as israeli lives, the threat that attending pro-palestine demonstrations will lead to prosecution by law and for non-german citizens to potential deportation, the claim that 'certainly muslims in germany have a right of protection from right wing attacks but if they don't condemn the protests now this right is waived' while at the same time stating there is no space for religious intolerance in germany , the condemnation of showings of solidarity after racist attacks being made quickly in contrast to solidarity with israel being rarer, are frankly terrifying and the use of antisemitism and the real fears and anxieties of jewish people as a moral shield - especially when so many jewish people are protesting for the rights of palestinians in New York and around the world, and especially considering Habeck's notion that antisemitism has come back to germany only now in the wake of the palestine protests, when for years the german government has done nothing to prevent far right antisemitism and in fact allowed and still allows white supremacist demonstrations under the right of free speech and with police protection - is upsetting and jewish people deserve so much better than to be used to justify racist and islamophobic crackdowns on minorities and people protesting genocide by politicians that only care about antisemitism when it can be used or the topic is making headlines.

Anyways, here is an english translation of the whole article under the cut - paragraphs in round brackets () are part of the article but not part of the speech, paragraphs in square brackets [] are context explanations by me for those readers who aren't german. Important to note that when the terms "jewish people" or "the jewish community" are used it is not a literal translation since the literal translation of the words Habeck , german vice chancellor, used ( "Juden und Jüdinnen" and "Judentum" ) literally translate to "jews and jewesses" and "jew-dom" which are the politicially correct terms in german but to my awareness are not politically correct to use in direct english translation, so I changed those. Boldening is mine as well.

(In a video Vice-chancellor and federal minister of economy Robert Habeck has expressed himself about the war in near-east and to antisemitism in Germany. His speech is much observed. Here it is in direct transcript.

Vice-chancellor federal minister of economy Robert Habeck has has called his much-observed video about solidarity with Isreal and the jewish people a contribution [of opinion] , of which there can't be enough. After many talks with representatives of the jewish community and jewish friends over the weekend he has given thoughts to "detangle the convoluted debate situation a bit" , as the Greens-politician said on Thursday.

In a video that his ministry had shared on X (formerly Twitter) on wednesday evening Habeck had admonished antisemitism in Germany harshly and urged for solidarity with jewish people in Germany. According to the platform until thursday morning this video has already been watched more than four million times and has been shared thousands of times. Politicians, also of the CDU [conservative/ center-right party] , have lauded the appeal.

Here the speech in direct transcript:)

"The terror attack by Hamas on Isreal has now been almost four weeks ago. A lot has since happened: politically though mostly for the people, so many people whose lives are eaten up by fear and sorrow. The public debate has heated up since the attack, in parts it is convoluted. With this video I want to make a contribution to untangle it.

(Habeck: Jewish people in Germany are afraid)

To me, too much seems to be mixed up too fast. The sentence "The security of Israel is german Reason of State" was never an empty phrase and must not become one. It says that the security of Israel is necessary for us as a state. This special relationship with Israel grows from our historical responsibility: it was the generation of my grandparents who wanted to exterminate jewish life in Germany and Europe. The founding of Israel was after this, after the holocaust, the promise of protection for the jewish people - and Germany is bound to help that this promise can be made reality. This is a historical foundation of this republic.

The responsibility of our history also means that jewish people in Germany can live free and secure. That they never have to be afraid again to show their religion and culture openly. But this fear has come back now.

Recently I have met with members of the jewish community in Frankfurt. In an intense and painful talk the community representatives told me that their children are afraid of going to school, that they don't go to sports club meetings, that they - on their parents suggestion - leave the necklace with the star of David at home. Today, here in Germany, almost 80 years after the holocaust.

(Contextualisation must not lead to relativisation)

They told me that they themselves are afraid of stepping into a taxi [for context: a lot of german taxi drivers are members of muslim minorities, mostly turkish] , that they aren't sending letters with their addresses on them anymore, to protect their recipients. Today, here in Germany, almost 80 years after the holocaust.

And one jewish friend told me about his fear, his despair, his feelings of loneliness.

The jewish communities are warning their members to avoid certain places - for their own safety. And this today, here in germany, almost 80 years after the holocaust.

The antisemitism shows in protests, it shows in statements, it shows in attacks on jewish stores, in threats. While there quickly are waves of solidarity when it comes to racist attacks , this solidarity is very brittle when it comes to Israel. Then it is said 'the context is complicated' . But here contextualisation mustn't lead to relativisation.

Certainly there is often too much outrage in our culture of debate. But here we cannot be outraged enough. It now needs clarity and no obfusciation. And part of this clarity is: antisemitism must not be tolerated in any form - in none of them.

(There is no space in Germany for religious intolerance)

The extent of the islamistic demonstrations in Berlin and other german cities is unacceptable and requires a hard political answer. It also needs it from the muslim communities. Some have decidedly distanced themselves from the actions of Hamas and from antisemitism, have reached out for conversation. But not all of them, and some too hesitantly and, in my opinion, generally too few of them.

The muslims living here have a right to be protected from far right violence, rightfully so. When they get attacked this right must be cashed in and they must now cash out the same thing, when jewish people are getting attacked. They must decidedly distance themselves from antisemitism now to not lose their own right on tolerance. There is no space in Germany for religious intolerance. Those who live here live here according to the rules of the country. And those who come here also must know that this is how it is and that it will be enforced.

(Habeck warns of 'entrenched antisemitism' in germany)

Our constitution protects and gives rights, but it also issues responsibilities that have to be fulfilled by everyone. You cannot separate one from the other. In this case tolerance cannot bear intolerance. This is the core of our living-together in this republic.

This means: the burning of israeli flags is a crime, the lauding of the terror of hamas is a crime as well. Those who are german will have to account for this in court, those who aren't german additionally risk their status of residence [that is, their right to stay living in germany]. For those who don't have a status of residence yet [that is, refugees] , this gives a reason to be deported.

(Anticolonialism mustn't lead to antisemitism)

The islamist antisemitism should not cover up that even in Germany we have entrenched antisemitism: it's just that the far right are currently holding back on it out of purely tactical reasons, so they can agitate against muslims [context: a lot of germany's far right tends to be pro-Israel] . The relativisation of the second world war, of the nazi regime as a 'fly's shit' [context: far right groups tend to deny the holocaust or call it 'just a fly's shit on history', 'fly's shit' here being a common phrase to mean 'an annoying but negligible tiny little issue'] isn't just a relativisation of the holocaust, it is a punch into the face of the victims and survivors.

Everyone that listens can and must know this. The second world war was a war-of-extermination against jewish people. For the nazi regime the extermination of the european jewish peoples was the main goal. And because there are quite a few Putin friends among the far right: Putin lets himself get photographed with representatives of Hamas and the iranian government and laments the civilian victims in the Gaza strip while creating civilian victims in Ukraine. His friends in germany are certainly not friends of jewish people.

But I am also worried about the antisemitism in parts of the political left , sadly especially amongst young activists. Anticolonialism shouldn't lead to antisemitism. Thus this part of the left should check their arguments and should not trust the great tale of [anticolonial] resistance. The 'both sides' argument here leads astray. The Hamas is a murderous terror-group who fights for the eradication of the state of Israel and the death of all jewish people. On the other hand the clarity with which for example the german section of Fridays for Future has stated this [that is, the aforementioned statement about Hamas as well as there not being two sides to the situation] even in disagreement with their international friends is more than commendable.

( It was Hamas that beast-like murdered children, parents, grandparents in their homes )

When I briefly was in Turkey, I was reproached about the fact that in Germany pro-Palestine demonstrations are prohibited. And that Germany should also extend its humanitarian efforts towards the people in Gaza. I explained that of course criticism of Israel is allowed here. And that it isn't prohibited to speak up about the rights of Palestinians and their right to their own state. But this call to violence against jewish people and this celebration of violence against jewish people are prohibited - and rightly so!

Sure, life in Gaza is a life without perspectives and in poverty. Sure, the settlement movement in the West Bank is causing strife and takes the hope and rights of Palestinians and increasingly also lives. And the suffering of the civilian populace now in war is a fact, an awful fact. Every dead child is one too many. Even I call for humanitarian aid and advocate for water, medicine and aid to come to Gaza and that the refugees are protected.

(Habeck: The security of Israel is our responsibilty, Germany knows this)

But together with our American friends we continually ensure Israel that the protection of their civilian populace is vital. Sure the death and suffering that now is coming over the people in the Gaza strip is bad. To say that is necessary and legitimate. But this does not legitimize systematic violence against jewish people. It does not justify antisemitism. Of course Israel should hold itself to international law and international standards. But the difference is: Who would ever formulate such demands towards the Hamas?

And because abroad I recently was confronted with how the attack on Israel from the 7th of October has been trivialised as an - quote - "unfortunate incident" , yes even the facts of it had been questioned, here once again to call it back to memory: It was Hamas who like beasts murdered children, parents and grandparents at home. Whose fighters have mutilated corpses, kidnapped humans and , laughing, exposed them to public humiliation. These are reports of pure horror - and still people celebrate Hamas as a freedom movement? That is a reversal of facts that we cannot leave standing.

And this brings me to my last point: The attack on Israel happens in a phase of an approach of multiple muslim states towards Israel. There is the Abraham-agreement between Israel and muslim states in the region. Jordan and Israel are working together on a big drinking water project. Saudi-Arabia was on its way to normalise its relation to Israel. But a peaceful cooperation of isreal and its neighbors, of jews and muslims, the perspective of a two-state solution - all of this the Hamas and its supporters, especially the iranian government, do not want. They want to destroy it.

Those who have not lost the hope for peace in the region, who believes in the palestinian's right to an own state and a true perspective - and we do - must differentiate in these weeks of trial. And to this differentiation belongs that the murderous deeds of Hamas want to prevent peace. Hamas does not want reconciliation with Israel, but the destruction of Israel. And that's why it is uncompromisable: Israel's right to existence must not be relativized. The security of Israel is our main responsibility, Germany knows this. "

[gallen]

Yesterday's News from North Korea. Press Statement of Spokesman of Korean Jurists Committee

Pyongyang, November 3 (KCNA) -- The number of innocent civilian casualties is increasing as Israel has recently escalated its reckless military attack on the Gaza Strip gradually.

According to data available since the outbreak of the Middle East incident on Oct. 7, more than 8 000 Palestinians, including 3 000-odd children and 2 000-odd women, were killed and over 20 000 wounded in the Gaza Strip due to indiscriminate air raids and shelling by Israel. And the damage is expected to be further expanded in the future due to the humanitarian crisis.

Nevertheless, the U.S. is getting frantic with military support to Israel, far from making efforts to settle the situation, while continuing to connive at and foster Israel's killing of civilians.

After the outbreak of the incident, the U.S. has zealously instigated the attack on the Gaza Strip while increasing the degree of military support to Israel by dispatching two aircraft carrier strike groups, an amphibious assaulting ship, fighters and many other war hardware to the region, deploying missile defense and interception systems such as THAAD and Patriot and proposing to the Congress an omnibus aid plan including a $14.3 billion support to Israel, a spokesman of the Korean Jurists Committee said in a press statement issued on Friday, and went on:

This shows that although the U.S. is talking about the prevention of escalation of the situation, its real intention is to zealously patronize and back Israel's reckless military attack on the Gaza Strip.

The U.S. exercised veto at a meeting of the UN Security Council on the Middle East crisis on Oct. 18, talking about Israel's "right to self-defense" and also foiled the adoption of a resolution at a UNSC meeting on Oct. 26, calling for a "temporary truce", not an "immediate ceasefire". The fact goes to clearly prove that it has no interest in the protection of civilians in the Gaza Strip.

In particular, the U.S. has insisted that Israel is not to blame for the death of more than 500 civilians due to the attack on a Palestinian hospital, shamelessly claiming that the number of civilian deaths announced by the Palestinian health authorities cannot be confirmed directly on the spot and, accordingly, cannot be recognized. This fully reveals the U.S. cruelty and barbarity.

The U.S. loudly clamored about "humanitarian disaster", calling for the "protection of civilians" in Ukraine. But it is conniving at and encouraging Israel's hideous killings of civilians while keeping mum about this. This is the height of double standards.

Through large-scale protest demonstrations and rallies in different parts of the world, the international community is now strongly urging Israel, which does not hesitate to commit massacres of civilians, and the U.S., which is zealously patronizing, conniving and fostering them, to immediately stop the human slaughter.

A resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire for humanitarian purposes was adopted at the Oct. 27 special emergency meeting of the UN General Assembly with the approval of 120 countries. And a statement of the Middle East countries on putting an end to the war crimes of Israel against mankind and on making an immediate truce for the protection of civilians was made public on Oct. 28. They are an eruption of strong protest and anger of the international community.

The U.S. one-sided policy and reckless military support policy on Israel are hideous war crimes that cause the massacre of innocent Arabians. It is none other than the U.S. which should be brought to the International Criminal Court and ousted from the UN Human Rights Council.

To put an end to the double standards of the U.S. engrossed in high-handed and arbitrary practices in different parts of the world is a prerequisite for establishing a fair and just international order. -0-

[trojerucica-blr]

Thoughts on Israel and Gaza

Written by Barack Obama,

Dad, husband, President, citizen.

It’s been 17 days since Hamas launched its horrific attack against Israel, killing over 1,400 Israeli citizens, including defenseless women, children and the elderly. In the aftermath of such unspeakable brutality, the U.S. government and the American people have shared in the grief of families, prayed for the return of loved ones, and rightly declared solidarity with the Israeli people.

As I stated in an earlier post, Israel has a right to defend its citizens against such wanton violence, and I fully support President Biden’s call for the United States to support our long-time ally in going after Hamas, dismantling its military capabilities, and facilitating the safe return of hundreds of hostages to their families.

But even as we support Israel, we should also be clear that how Israel prosecutes this fight against Hamas matters. In particular, it matters — as President Biden has repeatedly emphasized — that Israel’s military strategy abides by international law, including those laws that seek to avoid, to every extent possible, the death or suffering of civilian populations. Upholding these values is important for its own sake — because it is morally just and reflects our belief in the inherent value of every human life. Upholding these values is also vital for building alliances and shaping international opinion — all of which are critical for Israel’s long-term security.

This is an enormously difficult task. War is always tragic, and even the most carefully planned military operations often put civilians at risk. As President Biden noted during his recent visit to Israel, America itself has at times fallen short of our higher values when engaged in war, and in the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government wasn’t interested in heeding the advice of even our allies when it came to the steps we took to protect ourselves against Al Qaeda. Now, after the systematic massacre of Israeli citizens, a massacre that evokes some of the darkest memories of persecution against the Jewish people, it’s understandable that many Israelis have demanded that their government do whatever it takes to root out Hamas and make sure such attacks never happen again. Moreover, Hamas’ military operations are deeply embedded within Gaza — and its leadership seems to intentionally hide among civilians, thereby endangering the very people they claim to represent.

Still, the world is watching closely as events in the region unfold, and any Israeli military strategy that ignores the human costs could ultimately backfire. Already, thousands of Palestinians have been killed in the bombing of Gaza, many of them children. Hundreds of thousands have been forced from their homes. The Israeli government’s decision to cut off food, water and electricity to a captive civilian population threatens not only to worsen a growing humanitarian crisis; it could further harden Palestinian attitudes for generations, erode global support for Israel, play into the hands of Israel’s enemies, and undermine long term efforts to achieve peace and stability in the region.

It’s therefore important that those of us supporting Israel in its time of need encourage a strategy that can incapacitate Hamas while minimizing further civilian casualties. Israel’s recent shift to allow relief trucks into Gaza, prompted in part by the Biden administration’s behind-the-scenes diplomacy, is an encouraging step, but we need to continue to lead the international community in accelerating critical aid and supplies to an increasingly desperate Gaza population. And while the prospects of future peace may seem more distant than ever, we should call on all of the key actors in the region to engage with those Palestinian leaders and organizations that recognize Israel’s right to exist to begin articulating a viable pathway for Palestinians to achieve their legitimate aspirations for self-determination — because that is the best and perhaps only way to achieve the lasting peace and security most Israeli and Palestinian families yearn for.

Finally, in dealing with what is an extraordinarily complex situation where so many people are in pain and passions are understandably running high, all of us need to do our best to put our best values, rather than our worst fears, on display.

That means actively opposing anti-semitism in all its forms, everywhere. It means rejecting efforts to minimize the terrible tragedy that the Israeli people have just endured, as well as the morally-bankrupt suggestion that any cause can somehow justify the deliberate slaughter of innocent people.

It means rejecting anti-Muslim, anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian sentiment. It means refusing to lump all Palestinians with Hamas or other terrorist groups. It means guarding against dehumanizing language towards the people of Gaza, or downplaying Palestinian suffering — whether in Gaza or the West Bank — as irrelevant or illegitimate.

It means recognizing that Israel has every right to exist; that the Jewish people have claim to a secure homeland where they have ancient historical roots; and that there have been instances in which previous Israeli governments made meaningful efforts to resolve the dispute and provide a path for a two-state solution — efforts that were ultimately rebuffed by the other side.

It means acknowledging that Palestinians have also lived in disputed territories for generations; that many of them were not only displaced when Israel was formed but continue to be forcibly displaced by a settler movement that too often has received tacit or explicit support from the Israeli government; that Palestinian leaders who’ve been willing to make concessions for a two-state solution have too often had little to show for their efforts; and that it is possible for people of good will to champion Palestinian rights and oppose certain Israeli government policies in the West Bank and Gaza without being anti-semitic.

Perhaps most of all, it means we should choose not to always assume the worst in those with whom we disagree. In an age of constant rancor, trolling and misinformation on social media, at a time when so many politicians and attention seekers see an advantage in shedding heat rather than light, it may be unrealistic to expect respectful dialogue on any issue — much less on an issue with such high stakes and after so much blood has been spilled. But if we care about keeping open the possibility of peace, security and dignity for future generations of Israeli and Palestinian children — as well as for our own children — then it falls upon all of us to at least make the effort to model, in our own words and actions, the kind of world we want them to inherit.

Somebody says something:"God has already defeated Satan, Palestine has surrendered, all glory and praise belongs to God, victory is made history. God bless Israel".

Simona Markovic is feeling professional.

  · 

Shared with Public

That GOD IS NEITHER Benjamin Netanyahu - בנימין נתניהו NOR President Joe Biden 2 POLITICIANS OF IDIOTS.

[arabian-batboy]

Lets get things straight before we let the whipped western media start reporting on the on-going ethnic cleansing and massacres as “clashes” or about Israel once again bombing civilians in Gaza as “self-defense” or “retaliating.”

For the entire holy month of Ramadan and only in last month alone:

The Israeli army protected Israeli settlers during their “Death to Arabs” march where they attacked any Palestinian they saw, Israeli Mayors and members of their parliament were a part of that March.

The Israeli army dragged Palestinians civilians from their own homes, so that the cheering Israeli settlers standing to the side with their luggages can move in to there, because it’s literally a public law that Jerusalem’s non-Jewish population has to always be under 40%.

The Israeli army stormed Al Aqsa Mosque, the 3rd holiest site in Islam and started indiscriminately shooting rubber bullets and sound grenades at unarmed worshippers during Lalyt al Qadr, the holiest night in Islam. 

Thousands of people on Facebook, instagram and Twitter had their posts/accounted deleted or muted after reporting what happened there, Instagram claimed it was a “technical issue” but they have yet to give an actual reason as to why it happened/is till happening.

The very next day, despite all that happened, the Israeli government decided to still allow thousands of Jewish Israeli settlers to come to Jerusalem for their annual “Jerusalem Day,” a racist and nationalist holiday to celebrate stealing the city in 1967, where Jewish Settlers will march through Jerusalem while singing and waving the Israeli flags, all while being being 100% protected by the Israeli army at all times.

The Israeli army blocked any Palestinians from entering Jerusalem in the same exact day, all while accompanying those Israeli settlers and “defending” them as they assault Palestinians and try to break in their holy site.

The Israeli army deliberately used rubber-coated bullets on Palestinians civilians, not out of mercy, but to keep the morality rate low for their reputation, while still being able to disfigure as many Palestinians as they can to ensure that no trauma is wasted. Hence why the majority of Palestinians who got shot, have either lost their eyes or broke their elbows/knees.

The Israeli army prevented Palestinian medics from entering Jerusalem to tend to the injured Palestinians, the Israeli medics however were allowed to enter, but they only tended the injured Israelis soldiers.

By the end of the night, Israelis have set fire to the historic Al Aqsa Mosque, with thousands of Israeli settlers celebrating, clapping and singing right in front of the fire (literal videos of that can be found online)

The Israeli army is currently indiscriminately bombing Gaza, civilians causalities are increasing by the minute.

Western/American politicians who have been silent about all the violence that happened in this month are now coming out and claiming that they support Israel’s right of “self-defense” as they bomb Gaza.

The Israeli army is one of the strongest armies with (illegal) Nuclear weapons in the world, not only that but they receive weapons and 10 millions dollars a day from the US for free every single day. Palestinians only have rocks that they could find on the ground and social media to show the world their suffering.

This isn’t and has never been a conflict or “clashes” between two sides and never allow anyone to refer to it as such, the violence and suffering happening is purely one-sided. One side is an apartheid settler colony that’s fully-armed to the brim and are ruling over and ethnically cleansing the unarmed native population through various war crimes and human rights violation that regularly breaks international laws.

Israel is a rogue terrorist settler-colony that have been committing crimes against humanity no-stop for the last 72 years it has existed, their existence and the lack of consequences and the blind support they receive from western Superpower for committing crimes that are set by the international community should be a concern to everyone in this world.

[syn0vial]

Hello Wise One! I was actually hoping if you can give me some solid personality pointers on Jango, rather than Boba, Fett?

sure thing! full disclosure that my knowledge of jango is not as extensive as my knowledge of boba, but i’ll do my best with what i have! here are some personality traits of jango’s i’ve observed:

paranoid/protective: this is a big one if you ask me. jango endured a life of betrayal and loss before he became a bounty hunter and it shows. besides boba, he doesn’t trust anyone fully, not even those closest to him and is always ready to cut ties at the drop of a hat—lethally, if necessary. his mistrust of the rest of the galaxy is so potent that when he takes boba on missions to populated areas, he instructs him to hide even from normal foot traffic and becomes anxious when he learns that others may have spotted him. it becomes pretty evident that part of the reason boba was so isolated growing up was that jango didn’t trust the vast majority of the galaxy enough to let them near the kid. and when other bounty hunters find out about him? ho boy. jango actually convinces them that he killed boba using a cloned child’s body, bc he’d rather be known as the worst kind of monster rather than make boba a target. there’s also the fact that, after their apartment on kamino gets found out by obi-wan, jango is packed and ready to leave in minutes. not only is he ready to bug out at the first sign of danger, but he’s well-prepared to do so at a moment’s notice.

a loving father: another big one. for those who look at a man as battle-hardened and stoic as jango fett and wonder whether boba got enough affection as a kid, worry not: in the vast majority of depictions, jango is a very loving father, especially when he’s out of the prying eyes of clients and colleagues. he hugs boba, tells him he loves him, joins him in playing with toy starfighters, and tries to make time for him as much as he can. he even does his dadly duty of going fishing with his son (though he and boba practice spearfishing rather than using a rod and tackle). there’s also a wistful little scene where, trying to help boba feel better after zam’s death, he takes him to kamino’s main spaceport and lets him infodump about all the ships he sees there :,) so overall, he has a lot of good qualities as a dad

controlling: and the other side of the coin! while jango is a genuinely loving father, he’s not at all the type to encourage his son’s independent development. self-sufficiency? sure. interests in anything other than the path jango has laid out for him? not really. he actively discourages boba from learning about “unimportant” topics from books, an apparently very broad category given it includes things such as schools, moms, and other children. he drills into boba’s head that he’s going to be a bounty hunter and that he needs to abide by a code with such healthy guidelines like, “don’t have friends or attachments” and “trust no one but use everyone.” boba, of course, goes with it bc he loves his father and wants to live up to his expectations, but he never really gets a choice in the matter. honestly, i think this side of jango is best summed up by him leaving a post-humous note for boba that says, among other things, “i am more than a parent to you.” it kind of goes along with how, after jango’s death, boba continued to think of his father not just with love and grief, but also an almost religious dread of failing his expectations. jango undoubtedly loved his son but he also seems to have defined a very narrow path for him to walk, without room for deviation.

possesses an actual charisma score: okay, now for a more fun one: jango has a charisma score and he apparently makes a habit of using it, to the point where his old friend rozatta pokes fun at him for it (he compliments her and she’s like “oh, you’re flattering me? must mean you want something!”) he also pulls the same thing on zam, calling her charming to get her to agree to help him break into a target’s stronghold. so yeah, jango fett turning up the charm to get people to help him/give him info? 100% canon, baby

very fun friendship with zam wesell: look, this isn’t a personality trait, but it’s important to me. these two are just so fucking funny together. like, on the surface, it’s just a fun dynamic of zam making flirty banter and jokes while jango pretends to be annoyed and drag her, much to her delight. but then on a professional level, you have these two ammoral assholes bouncing wildly between being one another’s Sexy Rival and being one another’s Unhinged Partner but whoops, jango went and had a kid, so now they’re Unhinged But Mostly Responsible Co-Parents. one of my favorite scenes is when, in an attempt to intimidate a prisoner into talking, zam impersonates a politician and lets jango pretend to “kill” her in front of him. for some reason, even after they’re done, jango continues to bridal carry zam’s “body” into the cockpit of slave I, at which point, she perks up, bats her eyelashes at him, and goes, “you’d never really kill me would you, jango?” jango quite honestly replies, “only if i had to.” there’s a beat and then zam’s like, “....you’re so sweet! 😘” honestly, they’re so stupid, i love them

ascetic: much like his son, jango doesn’t seem to have much interest in luxury or “the finer things.” despite having enough money to live very comfortably, his apartment on kamino is described as “spartan” in design and furnishing. this may have something to do with the first bullet point, given that a simple life is easier to pack up and take with you at a moment’s notice, but i do think there’s some amount of preference in this lifestyle, given it’s what both fetts seem most comfortable with in all circumstances.

traumatized: i mean, he’s a fett, ain’t he? particularly, just like boba after him, jango is traumatized by the loss of his family, especially his own father figure, jaster mereel. much like boba, jango seems haunted by the need to live up to jaster’s name and legacy. for background, jaster was betrayed and killed in an ambush by the leader of deathwatch, after which he passed on the title of mand’alor to jango. however, some time after this, the true mandalorians led by jango were wiped out by a combination of death watch and the jedi, with jango himself being stripped of his armor and sold as a slave. after this point, jango does not seem to see himself as worthy of jaster’s legacy and thus attempts to pass it on to his son, resulting in the high and narrow expectations he sets for boba as mentioned in bullet point #3. boba himself concludes as much as an adult. on top of the trauma of losing his family, jango also seems to have been traumatized by his time as a slave. most notably, when he’s being tortured after being captured by target komari vosa, he at first remains fairly stoic, even as she starts to mutilate his face. it isn’t until she mentions enslaving him that he seems to panic, struggling desperately to get away. vosa even laughs and says that she must have touched a nerve with her comment. basically: fetts be traumatized :(

soft spot for (some) kids: another thing that’s interesting about jango is that he... usually attempts to do right when kids are involved. i say “usually” bc fat lot of good it did all the cloned children he had a hand in creating >:( but, for example, after killing a runaway clonetrooper as part of a bounty, he finds out that the clone had a son. unwilling to let the child live in poverty due to his own actions, he has regular payments sent to the boy’s mother to help support him. in another instance, jango and zam help deliver an artifact to a client who intends to use it to carry out a terrorist attack on coruscant against millions of civilians. when zam finds out about the client’s intentions, she’s horrified and goes to jango demanding they steal the artifact back. jango completely brushes her off at first, telling her it’s not his problem and that he needs to spend more time with his son. zam coldly asks him how many “sons” he thinks live on coruscant. needless to say, her argument convinces him to join her in stopping the terrorist plot :,)

aaand that’s all i got at the moment! i hope it helps to characterize jango a little bit more!

[thejoshscogin]

In most tragic events, both global and regional, I typically like to do my part to assist or help, while remaining in the background. Whether it is donating money, protesting, physically building houses, traveling out to give food and water to people, or any other potential aid I am able to contribute...these are done as “under the radar” as possible. Because, I am not usually a fan of the “look at me“ spotlight mentality, while the issues of the world should be getting the spotlight.

Now, I understand it is 2020 and “If you didn’t Gram it, it didn’t happen!“ but as a very private-introvert with a very strong moral compass, I personally don’t need the verification from social media to affirm my actions. Or, to put it more correctly, I don’t need the verification of social media to stroke an ego. In short, social media can often (but not always) take advantage of the “Never let a good crisis go to waste“ dogma. It can feel more about gaining “LIKES” and followers and a general “look at what I did“ pat-on-the-back, than focusing on the real issue at hand.

With all of that being said, this time it feels different. I’m still contributing in areas that I’m able, but the overwhelming morality of making it clear where I stand, outweighs the morality of not seeking vanity/self-aggrandizement. Obviously I’m still NOT here for vanity/self-aggrandizement but keeping in the background doesn’t feel like the correct path to take on this particular event dealing with race and humanity. So let me be clear.

The short version goes like this…

- I support Black Lives Matter! (duh)

- I support peaceful protests of civilians.

- I don’t support the violent looting and destruction of properties, but I understand them. I’ll speak more on that later.

- I don’t support the riots brought on by the police.

- I don’t support any authoritarian/dictator/tyrant in office that tries to hinder or remove our freedom of speech.

The long version goes like this…

I love America, or to put it more correctly, I love the potential of America. I have been fortunate enough to travel around the world many, many times (sweet brag Josh 😑) and there are so many wonderful places on this planet I would love to live but I always return home, to America.

We are not perfect (duh, no country is) and the harsh truth is that we will probably never fully end racism. I reckon there will always be idiots who hate other humans for something as pointless as skin color or as trivial as “Your pants are too tight.” or (insert any other juvenile scenario) but as Americans, if we feel like those idiots have become the people in power (police, leaders, presidents etc etc.) we have the right to freedom of speech. We have the right to voice our feelings against authority, and make a change. We have the right to protest.

Now let me be very clear, I am a full believer in peace! I believe that hate breeds more hate. I believe that violence breeds more violence. So, when these protests turn into looting and destruction of properties, it can feel like those people have lost the focus of the original task at hand. However, I also understand that when the pendulum has been so far on one side for so long, it is only natural for it to swing to the other side with brute force. Also, when the (very) peaceful protests of people like Colin Kaepernick are ignored, and in many ways punished, I can fully understand why stronger actions are felt justified and needed.

As Americans, we have the right to raise our voice when we see something needs to be corrected. So, when the peaceful, “indoor voice”, of the calm and collected Kaepernick doesn’t reach the ears of the giants in power ...or to put it more correctly, when it reaches the ears of the giants in power and yet, is completely ignored... it is only a matter of time before America feels like only a scream will suffice.

We must not forget that Kaepernick originally sat on the bench during the national anthem. It was only later that he decided it would be MORE respectful if he joined his team mates on the field and simply took a knee. I don’t know how he could have protested in a more peaceful (and respectful) way. That was like 4 or maybe 5 years ago, and yet, here we are. He tried. He gave peace a chance. Yet, here we are.

The cyclical tragedy of what happened to George Floyd is a real shame to the American powers that be. If only real measures and actions would’ve been taken from the lessons that should have been learned from Breonna Taylor or Freddie Gray or Eric Garner or Michael Brown or any of these people below (to name a few) with very similar scenarios.

Now I don’t even claim to know how to instantly fix these problems, but there are a few basic things that sure seem like it would have at least helped. First of all, people should have been fired! I’m not just talking about the individuals directly dealing with the deaths, they should be in jail, but I’m talking about any and all police officers who had a history of racism or known violent tendencies, they should have been fired, all across the nation. Secondly, real actions should have been taken after these events. I understand that eventually things like body cameras etc. came into affect but what’s the point, if it’s okay to just turn them off whenever they feel like it, with no repercussions in doing so.

Side Note: Hey cops, if you feel the need to turn your cameras off, then you are doing something wrong. If you feel the need to cover up your badge in anyway, then you are doing something wrong. If you feel the need to force other people with cameras to leave the scene, then you are doing something wrong. And there should be deep and drastic consequences for any cops doing any of the above mentioned. Also, to be clear, I am not necessarily anti-cop (in theory). I know a few cops and in fact, I feel like some of our other issues of today’s police force might have been sorted or at least minimized if, a long time ago, we would have paid cops a whole lot more money. But that’s a topic for another time and not on social media. End of side note:

1991 is the first scenario I can personally remember of police brutality of an unarmed black man that became very publicized. If only dramatic measures would have been taken from the lessons that should have been learned from way back when Rodney King was in the spotlight. Imagine what nearly 30 years of progress would look like today if we would have started it back then. Our situation now, would be very different and I could assume many lives would have been spared and generally just an overall quality-of-life would be better. Shame on the powers that be, that nearly 30 years later we are still watching, shot for shot, the exact same movie unfold again and again. It blows my mind that we are still dealing with the vastness of this issue.

So where do we go from here? What are some productive steps towards ending police brutality on black people? Well, unfortunately, the quickest and most sustainable solutions would have to come from the top. If the police chiefs of the nation would fire all of the racist idiots, there would be an instant and obvious difference in the right direction. I have more thoughts on that but, assuming there is no Chief of police reading this, I’ll save you the time...

As civilians, there are still things that can be done to assist the steps to getting us further towards the right direction. Since the majority of the people reading this are most likely NOT the closed-minded-racists who are the problems, the solutions can seem less direct but every step (big or small) in the correct direction adds up.

In the short term, I think the most direct thing you can do is to donate money or protest if you are able. If you are someone in power then you should fire all the racist idiots. I’m not just talking about the police force. If you are an employer of any sort, you should remove the bad apples and do your best to never hire them in the first place.

In the long term I think the best actions are to vote! Or, to put it more correctly, study up on politicians, know where they stand on topics that are important to you, and then VOTE! Please, for the love of America, don’t JUST VOTE without the due diligence. Vote big, like the presidential candidates etc. Vote small, like local jurisdictions and authorities etc. Lastly, I think it is very important to mix and mingle with folks outside of your top 8. It will do you good, it will do our country good. As I mentioned before, if you are reading this then you’re likely already fairly open minded but just remember, it can be a subtle and steady danger to ONLY communicate with the same inner sanctum of people that believe the exact same intricacies as you do. Communicate with lots of people, with lots of backgrounds. Diversify, and remember, communication is a dialogue not a monologue.

There are so many other things that can be done. These are just the first few that popped in my head.

Last thing and then I’m out. I do believe we will come out on the other side of this better than when we went in. The death of George Floyd is a tragedy and it is compounded by all of the previous tragedies that took place before him, regardless if they got publicity or not. But, look around, we are not sitting idly by.

When we all share the same voice and sing the same song, the mountains can be moved.

I would love to, in my lifetime, live in a country where every human felt safe, respected and appreciated. I would love to, in my lifetime, live in a nation where we celebrated all of our extensive differences. I would love to, in my lifetime, live in a land where the police were there to protect and the police were there serve. And I would love to, in my lifetime, have all humans feel truly equal. Change is coming. Or, to put it more correctly, change is upon us.

Sincerely,

Josh Scogin

“Your old road is rapidly agin'

Please get out of the new one

If you can't lend your hand

For the times they are a-changin' “

-Bob Dylan

[megashadowdragon]

I am ferdinand von aegir

ncfan-1 . tumblr . com/post/187898310567/i-am-ferdinand-von-aegir

The fact that Ferdinand says this every time you select him in battle in Part One is a meme for obvious reasons, but I’ve been thinking about it in a serious context for a little while, too.

Ferdinand places a lot of stock in his position as nobility, and in particular his position as successor to the Aegir dukedom, and what that means for his place in the Empire. He’s not the only student character in the game to place a lot of weight in his position—Lorenz, for instance, places a heavy emphasis on the fact that he’s a noble, and makes it clear even at the end of Part Two that he would make a better leader of the Alliance than Claude—but Ferdinand is unique in the sense that we can infer that the importance he places on his heritage and noble role is both something that was conditioned into him since he could understand spoken language, as well as something that is tied up in his sense of identity, and thus self-esteem.

Let’s back up a little bit.

Ferdinand is the only (or at least eldest) son of Duke Aegir, adviser to the current Emperor, Ionius IX. It’s known by everyone that Ferdinand is set to inherit the title and therefore the role and responsibilities of the current Duke Aegir, doing his part alongside Edelgard once she ascends the throne as it is also known that she will. This is a hefty responsibility, but one that Ferdinand feels confident he can take on, because he has been groomed for this since birth and has likely been assured that he will be able to do just as his father has done before him.

But what has his father done before him?

As far as Ferdinand is aware, his father has honorably upheld the status of Duke and has assisted / guided Ionius IX to leading Adrestia to prosperity. But what Ferdinand doesn’t know is that the current Duke Aegir hasn’t so much “guided” Ionius insomuch as he has controlled him, assisting other nobles into completely stripping Ionius of agency and torturing most of his children to death or insanity, and leaving Edelgard with her two Crests, shortened lifespan, and immense trauma. As of Part One, Ferdinand believes that his father is the image of what a noble should be: gallant, protective of commoners, and dedicated to assisting the current emperor and guiding him down the path of righteousness. For Ferdinand to believe this, he has to have been told this. And who would have told him this, if not for his father, the current Duke, himself?

To that end, I think it’s fair to assume that Duke Aegir was the one who filled Ferdinand’s head with the idea that he would have to “guide” Edelgard, no doubt using “guide” as a pleasant euphemism when what he really means is “control.” There is little doubt in my mind that the current Duke Aegir strove to groom Ferdinand to do the exact same thing to Edelgard that he himself did to Ionius IX: to not guide her, as an adviser would to his liege, but rather to control her as a puppeteer would to his marionette. Of course, he couldn’t outright tell Ferdinand to do this, so instead to impressed upon him the importance of guiding Edelgard, and more to the point impressed upon him that he was superior to Edelgard in every way. No doubt Ferdinand was told by his father since he was very, very small that he was smarter than Edelgard, more capable than Edelgard, stronger than Edelgard, and all around superior to her, and this was why he alone was set to “guide” her. If Duke Aegir made Ferdinand believe from essentially infancy that he was the one who would truly lead Adrestia to prosperity, then surely he would have no problem carrying on the noble Aegir tradition of stripping the emperor of all power and leading the country from the shadows. He would grow into the role pretty naturally, so long as Duke Aegir raised him to believe that Edelgard was misguided, weak, and ineffectual.

So Ferdinand grew up with his sense of self wrapped around this concept that he was superior to Edelgard in every way (and that this was a good thing, the right thing) and that he would lead Adrestia (and potentially the rest of Fodlan) to prosperity. His family was the most noble, the greatest, and he would carry the weight of Adrestia on his shoulders. He never doubted any of this because most children don’t doubt their parents when they’re very young, and with Edelgard constantly rebuffing his requests for duels, he had no reason to believe that he was anything but superior to her. (Note: I am not blaming Edelgard for any of this, I’m just saying that Ferdinand not getting knocked on his ass by her for so long did nothing to dash his image of superiority over her.) He was raised with the sole purpose of “guiding” Edelgard as Duke, and therefore never really branched out, considered what might happen if he wasn’t as superior to Edelgard as he was led to believe, or discovered who he really was …

… which is why the identity crisis hits him so hard in Part Two.

To be honest, it’s a bit unclear whether Edelgard ever actually tells Ferdinand what his father did to her (and Ionius IX) by the time Part Two rolls around. I think that if you’re on one of the other paths and recruit Ferdinand to those Houses (or if you’re doing Church Route), then there’s a good chance he never learns, and thinks that his father was unjustly stripped of his title and thrown in prison for no reason. But it’s also a bit hazy to me on whether he knows the truth on the Crimson Flower route either, because I seem to remember monastery dialogue from him at the beginning of Part Two where he says that his relationship with Edelgard is “contentious” at the moment, because of what happened with his father, which implies he doesn’t know (which … Edelgard, why wouldn’t you tell him?). But whether he knows or not, if you see Ferdinand’s supports with Byleth and Edelgard respectively, you see Ferdinand come to realize that he is not superior to Edelgard, and also that he now has to figure out what that means for him, and his role moving forward.

Aside from the fact that Duke Aegir never counted on Edelgard ascending the throne before Ferdinand could get her under his thumb, he also never realized that his attempts to condition Ferdinand to be just like him never had much of a chance of working, because unlike Duke Aegir, Ferdinand has a heart of gold. Ferdinand doesn’t take pride in his place as a noble because he legitimately believes that he’s better than others, but because he genuinely wants to help and protect those who need it. He sees commoner civilians get caught in the crossfire or suffering, and he believes it is not only his purpose, but his joy to help protect them. Setting aside the fact that Edelgard knew the truth of everything that was done to her father and was prepared to stop it, as well as the fact that Hubert would never conspire with anyone to manipulate and control Edelgard as his father did before him, I firmly believe that even if Edelgard hadn’t tossed the current Duke Aegir in jail and made it clear that those who conspired to control her would face similar consequences, Ferdinand would have never done what his father did. He believed, because he was raised to believe, that he was superior to Edelgard and that this was the way things were supposed to be, but he never held the malice toward Edelgard (or the greed for power) that his father held for hers. Ferdinand only ever wanted to work with Edelgard to ensure the best for their people, which is precisely what he ends up doing after coming to terms with who he is and what his true role within the Empire is, working as her advisor along with Hubert.

All of this is to say … I think it’s very telling that he stops declaring his identity on the battlefield all the time in Part Two. By the time Part Two rolls around, House Aegir is pretty much in disgrace due to his father being punished for his crimes, Ferdinand has most likely realized that he’s not superior to Edelgard as he has been raised to believe, and he knows now (since he’s fully out of his teenage years and has fought in a war for the past five years) that there is no honor that will be given simply based on what your name is or what House you hail from, but rather that honor is a result of your actions (and that even if not everyone knows your actions, that means nothing compared to the results your actions have). When he’s a teenager in Part One, Ferdinand declares his name on the battlefield because he thinks that telling the enemy that he is Ferdinand von Aegir, heir to the Aegir Dukedom, will be enough to make them quake in his boots and also let everyone else around know that they are safe and can rest easy because he is here to save the day. But when he’s an adult, he knows that his name in fact means nothing, and that if he wants people to know that he’ll protect them, he has to show them in action rather than just telling them in words (and also expecting them to know what those words mean, because as Byleth demonstrated when they first met, not everyone knows who Duke Aegir even is).

All in all, while Ferdinand shouting his name at the start of every battle in Part One is a meme for good reason (one that I myself laugh at), I also think it’s a subtle way to give insight to both his background and his character development given that he stops saying it in Part Two. Particularly when you see his supports with Byleth, Edelgard, and even Hubert, it’s clear how much he changes once he stops basing his entire identity and self-esteem around what he was raised to believe, and instead comes to determine a role and purpose for himself (which, incidentally, is what Edelgard wants and encourages everyone, Ferdinand included, to do). In that sense, it’s really wonderful and it’s something I’m glad is in the game, no matter how memetic it is.

[sage-nebula]

“I am Ferdinand von Aegir.”

The fact that Ferdinand says this every time you select him in battle in Part One is a meme for obvious reasons, but I’ve been thinking about it in a serious context for a little while, too.

Ferdinand places a lot of stock in his position as nobility, and in particular his position as successor to the Aegir dukedom, and what that means for his place in the Empire. He’s not the only student character in the game to place a lot of weight in his position---Lorenz, for instance, places a heavy emphasis on the fact that he’s a noble, and makes it clear even at the end of Part Two that he would make a better leader of the Alliance than Claude---but Ferdinand is unique in the sense that we can infer that the importance he places on his heritage and noble role is both something that was conditioned into him since he could understand spoken language, as well as something that is tied up in his sense of identity, and thus self-esteem.

Let’s back up a little bit.

Ferdinand is the only (or at least eldest) son of Duke Aegir, adviser to the current Emperor, Ionius IX. It’s known by everyone that Ferdinand is set to inherit the title and therefore the role and responsibilities of the current Duke Aegir, doing his part alongside Edelgard once she ascends the throne as it is also known that she will. This is a hefty responsibility, but one that Ferdinand feels confident he can take on, because he has been groomed for this since birth and has likely been assured that he will be able to do just as his father has done before him.

But what has his father done before him?

As far as Ferdinand is aware, his father has honorably upheld the status of Duke and has assisted / guided Ionius IX to leading Adrestia to prosperity. But what Ferdinand doesn’t know is that the current Duke Aegir hasn’t so much “guided” Ionius insomuch as he has controlled him, assisting other nobles into completely stripping Ionius of agency and torturing most of his children to death or insanity, and leaving Edelgard with her two Crests, shortened lifespan, and immense trauma. As of Part One, Ferdinand believes that his father is the image of what a noble should be: gallant, protective of commoners, and dedicated to assisting the current emperor and guiding him down the path of righteousness. For Ferdinand to believe this, he has to have been told this. And who would have told him this, if not for his father, the current Duke, himself?

To that end, I think it’s fair to assume that Duke Aegir was the one who filled Ferdinand’s head with the idea that he would have to “guide” Edelgard, no doubt using “guide” as a pleasant euphemism when what he really means is “control.” There is little doubt in my mind that the current Duke Aegir strove to groom Ferdinand to do the exact same thing to Edelgard that he himself did to Ionius IX: to not guide her, as an adviser would to his liege, but rather to control her as a puppeteer would to his marionette. Of course, he couldn’t outright tell Ferdinand to do this, so instead to impressed upon him the importance of guiding Edelgard, and more to the point impressed upon him that he was superior to Edelgard in every way. No doubt Ferdinand was told by his father since he was very, very small that he was smarter than Edelgard, more capable than Edelgard, stronger than Edelgard, and all around superior to her, and this was why he alone was set to “guide” her. If Duke Aegir made Ferdinand believe from essentially infancy that he was the one who would truly lead Adrestia to prosperity, then surely he would have no problem carrying on the noble Aegir tradition of stripping the emperor of all power and leading the country from the shadows. He would grow into the role pretty naturally, so long as Duke Aegir raised him to believe that Edelgard was misguided, weak, and ineffectual.

So Ferdinand grew up with his sense of self wrapped around this concept that he was superior to Edelgard in every way (and that this was a good thing, the right thing) and that he would lead Adrestia (and potentially the rest of Fodlan) to prosperity. His family was the most noble, the greatest, and he would carry the weight of Adrestia on his shoulders. He never doubted any of this because most children don’t doubt their parents when they’re very young, and with Edelgard constantly rebuffing his requests for duels, he had no reason to believe that he was anything but superior to her. (Note: I am not blaming Edelgard for any of this, I’m just saying that Ferdinand not getting knocked on his ass by her for so long did nothing to dash his image of superiority over her.) He was raised with the sole purpose of “guiding” Edelgard as Duke, and therefore never really branched out, considered what might happen if he wasn’t as superior to Edelgard as he was led to believe, or discovered who he really was . . .

. . . which is why the identity crisis hits him so hard in Part Two.

To be honest, it’s a bit unclear whether Edelgard ever actually tells Ferdinand what his father did to her (and Ionius IX) by the time Part Two rolls around. I think that if you’re on one of the other paths and recruit Ferdinand to those Houses (or if you’re doing Church Route), then there’s a good chance he never learns, and thinks that his father was unjustly stripped of his title and thrown in prison for no reason. But it’s also a bit hazy to me on whether he knows the truth on the Crimson Flower route either, because I seem to remember monastery dialogue from him at the beginning of Part Two where he says that his relationship with Edelgard is “contentious” at the moment, because of what happened with his father, which implies he doesn’t know (which . . . Edelgard, why wouldn’t you tell him?). But whether he knows or not, if you see Ferdinand’s supports with Byleth and Edelgard respectively, you see Ferdinand come to realize that he is not superior to Edelgard, and also that he now has to figure out what that means for him, and his role moving forward.

Aside from the fact that Duke Aegir never counted on Edelgard ascending the throne before Ferdinand could get her under his thumb, he also never realized that his attempts to condition Ferdinand to be just like him never had much of a chance of working, because unlike Duke Aegir, Ferdinand has a heart of gold. Ferdinand doesn’t take pride in his place as a noble because he legitimately believes that he’s better than others, but because he genuinely wants to help and protect those who need it. He sees commoner civilians get caught in the crossfire or suffering, and he believes it is not only his purpose, but his joy to help protect them. Setting aside the fact that Edelgard knew the truth of everything that was done to her father and was prepared to stop it, as well as the fact that Hubert would never conspire with anyone to manipulate and control Edelgard as his father did before him, I firmly believe that even if Edelgard hadn’t tossed the current Duke Aegir in jail and made it clear that those who conspired to control her would face similar consequences, Ferdinand would have never done what his father did. He believed, because he was raised to believe, that he was superior to Edelgard and that this was the way things were supposed to be, but he never held the malice toward Edelgard (or the greed for power) that his father held for hers. Ferdinand only ever wanted to work with Edelgard to ensure the best for their people, which is precisely what he ends up doing after coming to terms with who he is and what his true role within the Empire is, working as her advisor along with Hubert.

All of this is to say . . . I think it’s very telling that he stops declaring his identity on the battlefield all the time in Part Two. By the time Part Two rolls around, House Aegir is pretty much in disgrace due to his father being punished for his crimes, Ferdinand has most likely realized that he’s not superior to Edelgard as he has been raised to believe, and he knows now (since he’s fully out of his teenage years and has fought in a war for the past five years) that there is no honor that will be given simply based on what your name is or what House you hail from, but rather that honor is a result of your actions (and that even if not everyone knows your actions, that means nothing compared to the results your actions have). When he’s a teenager in Part One, Ferdinand declares his name on the battlefield because he thinks that telling the enemy that he is Ferdinand von Aegir, heir to the Aegir Dukedom, will be enough to make them quake in his boots and also let everyone else around know that they are safe and can rest easy because he is here to save the day. But when he’s an adult, he knows that his name in fact means nothing, and that if he wants people to know that he’ll protect them, he has to show them in action rather than just telling them in words (and also expecting them to know what those words mean, because as Byleth demonstrated when they first met, not everyone knows who Duke Aegir even is). 

All in all, while Ferdinand shouting his name at the start of every battle in Part One is a meme for good reason (one that I myself laugh at), I also think it’s a subtle way to give insight to both his background and his character development given that he stops saying it in Part Two. Particularly when you see his supports with Byleth, Edelgard, and even Hubert, it’s clear how much he changes once he stops basing his entire identity and self-esteem around what he was raised to believe, and instead comes to determine a role and purpose for himself (which, incidentally, is what Edelgard wants and encourages everyone, Ferdinand included, to do). In that sense, it’s really wonderful and it’s something I’m glad is in the game, no matter how memetic it is.

[real-jaune-isms]

RWBY Volume 7 Chapter 10 Rundown

Another great and satisfying episode, yet it leaves us with a better cliffhanger than even the one going into this last winter hiatus. I have to commend them for that, even if I hate how badly I couldn’t wait for the next episode. But while so many of the scenes were really good, it almost feels too good to be true. The heat going off and Watts being as in control as he was could be the worst things get this volume, but I can’t help but anticipate the moment it goes from bad to worse. Spoilers for next week, that moment is coming soon.

Fortunately for my recurring annoyance at their bad habit of doing this, the episode does not start in the aftermath of this Grimm attack like they had for the one following Penny being framed and the riots after Jacques laid everybody off. Instead we open to Mantle still in turmoil and distress. Grimm are running and flying everywhere, Atlesian soldiers are killing a few but still taking casualties, and people are running for their lives in mass, one group barely avoiding getting trampled by a stampede of Mega Goliaths, or Megoliaths for short. We briefly see the Happy Huntresses doing a good job of defending civilians before a Sabyr runs by them. Another Sabyr tries to attack a Faunus mother and son before getting literally cat-called by Nora who jumps from the top of a building to bash it to dust. Marrow and Weiss are with her, and get back to work as they see another wave of the vicious cats running in. Speaking of cats, Blake is being chased by a Megoliath and 3 Ursai, and only dodges the smaller beasts by using Dust based clones to take them down or put them in the path of getting trampled by the larger pachyderm. The Megoliath can’t handle corners as well as she can and crashes into the front of a building in trying to keep following her. The beast is closing in, but she dodges to the right and it instead runs right into a rooted Elm who stops it dead in its tracks and even lifts it into the air by its tusks. Yang rushes in and plants her sticky bombs on the thing’s belly before Elm throws it a few dozen feet into the air where Yang blows it up. The three are winded but still urge civilians to get to the nearest shelter, knowing full well that even if those shelters are going to fill up fast there’s not much safe alternative right now. Qrow and Clover are taking Teryx out from the rooftops before getting unheard new orders and leaping away. Back to the first group of heroes, Weiss shows off a little and impales a Sabyr that had leaped over Marrow’s head on her Knight’s sword. She then looks at him from behind the blade and laughs that he had gotten scared by that and is holding his tail for safety. Ruby had done the same peeking around the edge of something to laugh 4 episodes ago. Guess some of her partner’s habits are rubbing off on the Ice Queen~ The civilians they’re protecting are backed against the border wall as alarm lights are still turning on all around them, making for a very panic inducing environment. They beg Nora to let them be taken to Atlas where it’s safe, saying they won’t survive here and decrying Ironwood for not doing anything to help. Nora tries to quell the outrage, promising they will be taken to safety, just give the huntsmen and huntresses a little more time.

But they soon get something better than “a little more time”, screens all over Mantle lighting up with a broadcast from Robyn Hill and General Ironwood who are hand in hand to prove there will be no lies. Such a useful Semblance Robyn has~ Ironwood is telling everyone about Salem right here and now, though he leaves out the part about her being Ozpin’s immortal evil ex and just says she’s the ancient and malicious force behind the attacks on Beacon and Haven. We see shots of our other heroes killing Grimm in Mantle, like Ruby with Harriet, and Ren and Jaune with Vine, as they realize Ironwood is coming clean. Even the villains are shown hearing what he has to say, Cinder and Neo watching the broadcast on the latter’s Scroll while Watts and Tyrian hide out in an alleyway. Speaking of those two bad boys, Ironwood publicly outs them as being responsible for all the recent hardship and freezing in Mantle and says that the panic and distrust they’ve sewn is exactly what Salem wants. It’s a pretty rousing speech, especially when he says that the people have what it takes to overcome this threat if they all work together. A pack of Sabyrs had been charging up the street to attack the people Ren and Jaune were protecting, but Vine uses his aura arms to spread them apart and press them against the buildings on either side so there is a clear path down the middle. As the General starts to inspire people, Jaune uses all his training and experience... from preschool crosswalk duty. It does help here though, since everyone gets into a single file line and keeps track of one another through a hand on the shoulder so they all stay close together while Jaune boosts Ren’s Semblance to mask the entire group from the Grimm pack they’re walking right through the middle of. He even has a few of the preschool kids there to “show’em how it’s done~”. The whole thing has a bit of a biblical Exodus vibe if I may be honest, and it’s kinda satisfying to see Jaune has skills and strengths no one saw coming from taking the work others thought was beneath them. Ironwood also admits why he wasn’t doing much to help Mantle, that being that he was focused on the Amity Tower that he says is now complete and ready to launch. The renovation of the Amity Coliseum is not news to Watts, but he didn’t know it was to become a communications tower and he pulls up the schematics in disbelief that James was working on such a big project without him noticing. Ironwood declares that he is taking all security ships away from Amity, and sending a dozen more down with them, to evacuate everyone in Mantle up to the safety of Atlas. Robyn publicly endorses and fully supports the plan and says now is the time to come together for peace, and the once terrified crowds cheer.

Someone who is NOT cheering is Tyrian, who punches a wall hard enough to leave cracks out of anger and frustration. All their work causing death and chaos, and the people are more united than ever. Peace like that is sickening to him. But Watts quells his rage for the moment, he’s still got a scheme in mind. He just needs Tyrian to cause a bit more trouble and keep the public’s eye on Mantle while he pays a visit to Ironwood’s pet project. Tyrian raises the valid point that this is already about as chaotic as you can get, but Watts plays to his ego and says if anyone can accomplish the task it’s a master like him. Robyn’s still on screen saying that the people still in shelters should stay put and transports will come to them, and that she will personally be coming to help in Sector 17. And that’s enough to inspire the psychopathic scorpion’s next move. 

Meanwhile, we go back to Atlas where the cycloptic pyromaniac... I mean Cinder, is pissed that Watts and Tyrian have already started a grand plan before she arrived and she had no idea. Last she had heard Salem would be targeting Vacuo and she would have Atlas all to her secret self in the meantime. But she realizes that since she was left for dead at Haven Salem has changed the plan. She’s been out of the loop, but she’s not out of the game. Since everyone is focused on the trouble Watts started down in Mantle, no one will be paying attention if she makes her move in Atlas. Neo lets her disguise powers do the talking for her by turning into a perfect doppelganger of Ruby. She wants to go after Ruby now and get her revenge, but Cinder insists that they will be following HER plan dammit. First the Maiden powers (so she can become stronger and hopefully be able to kill Ruby at last), then they can indulge in cathartic revenge. So Neo will go after Oscar to get the lamp, since they want to take that from the heroes too, and Cinder will take advantage of Ironwood’s paranoia to expose Fria’s hiding spot. As we see next episode, she actually has a really good subtle plan for that. What is less subtle is the foreshadowing of how Neo will achieve her part of the plan: she’ll pose as one of the heroes she saw at the dinner party and thus can turn into to get close to Oscar and catch him by surprise, most likely that’s going to be Ruby.

Back down in Mantle, dozens of ships indeed start arriving and landing to evacuate the civilians to safety. We hear a sonic boom and see a streak of green dash across the sky. Another three Megoliaths charge at the ship Blake and Yang are helping herd people onto, but Elm reveals that her hammer is also a rocket launcher and uses it to blow the Grimm away. She even roots her feet down to brace herself against the recoil. Then she gives the cheering people an okay sign and a smile, it’s all in a day’s work! They hear a sonic boom too and the green streak soars by them too. Ruby and Harriet are looking for the closest landing zone to bring their group of civilians to, but instead find a bigger and meaner Megoliath than the last few. Maybe they were actually just Goliaths and this one is a real Megoliath... Regardless, it’s blocking the way to the LZ and charging at them. Luckily, the green streak soars in and is revealed to be Penny!! She shots a beam in front of the Grimm to disorient and stop it before landing with her friends. Harriet and Penny rush in to try and take the monster down, while Ruby tries to focus and tap into her Silver Eyes. Unlike last Volume, she can’t keep her focus for very long and abandons that strategy in favor of flying up to a rooftop to shoot the Grimm. It does next to nothing, as does Penny stabbing all her swords into the elephant’s exposed skull. Instead it pulls the poor android in close by the wires her swords are still attached to and sends her flying a few blocks away. Ruby dashes over to check on her, but she’s fine. She just cheerfully says ouch and comments on how dangerous the mammoth’s tusks are. This gives Ruby a great idea and we get one of those confidently nodding in agreement without even having to ask what the plan is moments from Penny... before she asks Ruby to tell her what it is. Harriet is still zooming around and weaving between the Grimm’s legs, trying whatever she can to stop or even slow the beast, to only detrimental results. Her Aura breaks, but Penny blasts the Megoliath’s head before it can trample the speedster and gets it to turn down a different street toward her. It does so, and she fires a Kamehameha at it. No, really. She moves her hands to one side and behind her to charge it, then keeps them cupped together to fire the blast in front of her! Admittedly the energy is coming from her swords spinning in a circle in front of her, as she has done since her first fight in Volume 1, but the hand movement was different here and more in line with Dragon Ball’s most iconic technique. Still, she one ups the reference by diverting 3 swords further down and to her left to fire a smaller beam at one of the Grimm’s tusks. The single point on tusk starts to heat up, while the larger beam seems to be mostly for slowing the Grimm. At Ruby’s signal, Penny stops the attack altogether and the speedster zooms right up to the Megoliath’s face to cut off the tusk at the point weakened by the heat of Penny’s beam. Clever strategy, weakening the density at that point to make it vulnerable. What comes next makes the plan epic though, as Penny grabs the severed tusk and impales it into the ground with the tip facing up while Ruby trips the mammoth’s back leg and it falls onto its own sharp body part. Much like the Omnidroid from the Incredibles, the only thing strong enough to kill it is itself. With the dangerous beast defeated, the people cheer and Penny’s reputation is restored as the Protector of Mantle. They can safely evacuate their group, and they hear similar good news from Nora and Yang’s squads. Hooray!

As Penny gives Robyn this good news over the comms, we cut to the hometown hero herself as she tells Joanna to bring the people they’re with to safety while she “checks for stragglers” and runs down an alley. Tyrian arrives to ambush her and bemoan how he hates all the hope and happiness she brings as he dodges her crossbow bolts and even catches one between his fingers before bending it with his thumb. But as he charges at her, a fishing hook almost snags him and he realizes he is the one being ambushed. Qrow and Clover are here to back Robyn up and she purposefully revealed her location to, no fishing pun intended, lure the killer in. She wants first crack at the bastard who killed her followers, but Clover wants to settle his grudge first. Unfortunately, neither can compare to the chip on Qrow’s shoulder after this punk poisoned him in Volume 4 so he’s earned the first shot. Tyrian does not like this new development one bit, and it’s possible he might just be outmatched... but we have to wait until next episode to see how that goes.

For the final storyline of the night, Doctor Watts is flying up to Amity to give the new communications tower a check up of sorts. With carpetbag in hand he makes his way to the center of the arena and surveys the renovations. They are... rather lackluster, and that’s the point. Ironwood lied about the tower being finished so he could bait Watts into coming to try and sabotage it, and the doors lock so the evil genius can’t escape. You might be wondering how the General could have lied when he was on video with a human lie detector, but they were sneaky and used a close up of just his face when he said the tower was completed so neither Watts or the audience saw that it was a lie!! Ironwood leaps down from the commentator’s booth to face Watts in the arena, and Watts uses his hacking rings to activate the biome system so their duel can be a bit more interesting~ A couple geyser and volcano biomes, and four gravity platform sections. The gravity biomes were apparently the only type CRWBY didn’t get to show off during the Vytal Tournament, so they made them the focal point of this fight. Ironwood has the good sense to try and shoot Watts while he’s bent over to touch the ground and activate the biomes, but the scientist is nothing if not ingenious and has a hexagonal shield of hard light Dust to project out of his right glove that stops the bullet. While Ironwood is checking what biomes are coming up, Watts runs off the edge and leaps onto one of the rising platforms in a gravity section. When all the mechanical changing is said and done, Watts has the high ground and both men draw their weapons. Ironwood of course has his two thick hand guns, while Watts is revealed to carry a flintlock pistol with gold vine designs up the double barrels and about... 18 or 20 chambers for bullets. That is way too much gun for one gun. From what small glimpse we get of the bullets, they seem to be hard light dust based, so who knows how much of an oomph they will pack? As he starts spinning the chambers, Watts admittedly indulges in cliche to say he won’t be going down without a fight. And that’s where the episode ends, a great cliffhanger leaving us in enthusiastic high spirits. I loved this episode a lot, and lots of other fans seem to have too.

Shame I have existential dread from the next one...

[daresplaining]

Iron Fist Countdown: 9 Days

Danny Rand’s Continuing Identity Quest

    Over the past year-and-a-half (our time) Danny has been fighting his way through one of the most complex and emotional character arcs in the Netflix MCU. In the first season of his solo show, he had all aspects of his identity scrutinized and ripped apart by the people around him, by circumstances, and by the turmoil of his own repressed trauma. One of the most dangerous villains in that show was Danny’s own internal strife, and its biggest mystery was his motivation for leaving his home-- a mystery he could not solve until he had worked through the layers of grief and rage surrounding his parents’ deaths. Upon returning to Earth, Danny had to figure out what it meant to be Danny Rand. Through his fight with the Hand and his struggle to figure out why he left K’un-Lun, Danny had to figure out what it meant to be the Iron Fist. And due to the changes in his origin story, MCU Danny didn’t have an easy target to blame for his parents’ death, and thus struggled with how to find closure and thereby reconcile the confusion and conflict in his life. By the end of that show he’d gained hard-earned answers: what happened to his parents, why he abandoned his home, how to move forward, and how to be the Iron Fist without also losing himself. 

    And then the unthinkable happened: while Danny fought the Hand in New York, K’un-Lun was (seemingly...) attacked, kicking off the events of The Defenders (a.k.a. Iron Fist Season 1.5). Danny’s attempts at finding a comfortable balance of being the Iron Fist on his own terms were smothered by a new flood of grief and rage-- this time for his lost home. Blaming himself, he seized his role as the city’s Immortal Weapon with a vengeance, determined to prove himself and make the Hand pay. He saw his previous identity questions as the root of his failure, and so he tossed them aside entirely. 

    In the end, Danny’s Defenders arc was weakened by the fact that he wasn't the one to take down the Hand. He didn’t get the satisfaction of having his vengeance, and he didn’t get the chance to prove himself and come into his own as the Iron Fist, and we found that extremely frustrating. But he didn’t come out of that show empty-handed either. 

    In Luke Cage Season 2 we saw a happier, more optimistic Danny in the process of healing. In The Defenders he’d found a new supportive community-- most notably, in Luke-- and through these friendships he started to become emotionally settled in New York City. No feeling longer quite as lost and hopeless, he was able to step back for a minute from all of his personal issues and just enjoy hanging out with a friend. His conversations with Luke also revealed that somehow, in between shows, he’d seemingly learned that K’un-Lun hadn’t been destroyed after all. Thus, with that weight off his shoulders, we saw him relax into a more comfortable sense of his self and identity.   

    The Defenders also left him with a mission-- a way of still acting as the Iron Fist while on Earth. With his “dying” words, Matt Murdock made Danny promise to protect New York. Thus, Danny was given the motivation to take on a new identity: that of a superhero. In the upcoming season of Iron Fist we will get to see how he negotiates this new melding of his Earth- and K’un-Lun-based identities.  

“I am Danny Rand. The Immortal Iron Fist. I made a promise to Matt Murdock to wear his mask... I’ve fought this war in his place... And I’ll continue to. But I haven’t forgotten who I am... and soon it will be time to carry my own burdens again.”

Civil War: Choosing Sides by Ed Brubaker, Matt Fraction, David Aja, and Matt Hollingsworth

    This plot point has its origins in the comics. While Matt was in jail and then out of the country, Danny took over as Daredevil. He retained this identity all through the first superhero Civil War, and continued to preserve Daredevil’s presence in New York until Matt returned. We don’t expect Danny to actually put on the Daredevil costume in the show. He is not far enough along in his own identity quest to start fully taking on other peoples’. But he will be going out onto the streets as a superhero in the more traditional sense, forging new connections to his new city and facing all of the strange new challenges inherent in street-level crimefighting. In this way he will be building another duality into his identity, as both Iron Fist: Immortal Weapon and Iron Fist: NYC superhero. And this feels right. Danny has never had much of a civilian identity in the comics. We learned in Luke Cage that he is (unsurprisingly) not directly running Rand Enterprises. The identity questions in his life should mostly revolve around his fighting and his place within the Iron Fist legacy.    

    And that part of him will be under attack this season from an inevitable-yet-exciting source. Davos, just as in the comics, feels personal ownership of the Iron Fist identity. He is critical of Danny’s approach to the position, and is now coming to claim it for himself. Danny was robbed of the opportunity to prove himself in The Defenders, but here he will have another shot at it. He will be forced to defend his title, and to thereby reclaim it for himself. He initially acquired the chi of Shou-Lao with confused intentions. Now he will have a chance to do it again, clear-eyed and informed about what this life choice really means. This challenge will prompt Danny to prove-- to himself, to the world, maybe even to Davos-- why he is the right person to hold this position. After all of this time, and all of the twists and turns of his identity quest, this season should-- and hopefully will-- finally allow Danny reach his full potential as the Iron Fist. 

[ojjjksworld]

Bombing and Destabilizing

The US began bombing Cambodia in 1965. From that year until 1973, the US Air Force dropped bombs from more than 230,000 sorties on over 113,000 sites. The exact tonnage of bombs dropped is in dispute, but a conservative estimate of 500,000 tons (almost equal to what the United States dropped in the entire Pacific theater of World War II) is unquestionable.

The ostensible targets of the bombings were North Vietnamese and National Liberation Front (“Viet Cong”) troops stationed in Cambodia and, later, KR rebels. However, it is indisputable that there was also total disregard for civilian life. In 1970, President Richard Nixon issued orders to National Security Advisor (and later Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger:

They have got to go in there and I mean really go in. I don’t want the gunships, I want the helicopter ships. I want everything that can fly to go in there and crack the hell out of them. There is no limitation on mileage and there is no limitation on budget. Is that clear?

Kissinger relayed these orders to his military assistant, Gen. Alexander Haig: “He wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn’t want to hear anything. It’s an order, it’s to be done. Anything that flies on anything that moves.”

Just how many people the United States killed and injured will never be known. In his book Ending the Vietnam War, Kissinger himself cites an apparent memo from the Historical Office of the Secretary of Defense stating there were 50,000 Cambodian casualties. The leading Cambodian Genocide scholar, Ben Kiernan, estimates the likely number to be between 50,000 and 150,000.

One Cambodian eyewitness to a bombing described the event as follows:

Three F-111s bombed right center in my village, killing eleven of my family members. My father was wounded but survived. At that time there was not a single soldier in the village, or in the area around the village. 27 other villagers were also killed. They had run into a ditch to hide and then two bombs fell right into it.

The US bombing campaign in Cambodia destabilized an already fragile government. When Cambodia won its independence from France in 1953, Prince Norodom Sihanouk became its effective ruler. A neutralist, Sihanouk’s primary objective was to maintain the integrity of Cambodia — a task that proved enormously difficult, as American, Chinese, and Vietnamese interests, as well as various left- and right-wing factions within Cambodia, were all pulling Sihanouk in different directions. Attempting a delicate balancing act, he played groups off one another, working with one group one day and opposing it the next.

One group challenging Sihanouk was the Communist Party of Kampuchea, which would become widely known as the Khmer Rouge. The leadership of the party was roughly divided into two factions: one was pro-Vietnamese and advocated cooperation with Sihanouk, the other — led by Pol Pot — was anti-Vietnamese and opposed Sihanouk’s rule. By 1963, Pol Pot’s faction had mostly displaced the other, more experienced faction. The same year, he moved to rural Cambodia to formulate an insurgency campaign.

Four years later, a peasant uprising known as the Samlaut Rebellion broke out in the countryside over a new policy that forced peasants to sell their rice to the government at below-black-market rates. To ensure compliance, the military was stationed in the local communities to purchase (or simply take) the rice from the farmers.

With their livelihoods suffering, peasants launched an uprising, killing two soldiers. As the rebellion quickly spread to other areas of Cambodia, Pol Pot and the KR capitalized on the unrest, gaining peasant support for their fledgling insurgency. By 1968, KR leaders were directing ambushes and attacks on military outposts.

Pol Pot’s insurgency was indigenous, but as Kiernan argues, his “revolution would not have won power without U.S. economic and military destabilization of Cambodia.” Previously apolitical peasants were motivated to join the revolution to avenge the deaths of their family members. As a 1973 Intelligence Information Cable from the CIA’s Directorate of Operations explained:

Khmer insurgent (KI) [Khmer Rouge] cadre have begun an intensified proselyting campaign among ethnic Cambodian residents . . . in an effort to recruit young men and women for KI military organizations. They are using damage caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda.

In 1969, the US air war against Cambodia escalated drastically as part of Nixon’s Vietnamization policy. The goal was to wipe out Vietnamese communist forces located in Cambodia in order to protect the US-backed government of South Vietnam and US forces stationed there. At the beginning of the escalation, KR fighters numbered less than 10,000, but by 1973, the force had grown to over 200,000 troops and militia.

The US-backed coup that removed Sihanouk from power in 1970 was another factor that dramatically strengthened the KR insurgency. (Direct US complicity in the coup remains unproven, but as William Blum amply documents in his book Killing Hope, there is enough evidence to warrant the possibility).

Sihanouk’s overthrow and replacement by the right-wing Lon Nol sharpened the contrast between the opposing camps within Cambodia and fully embroiled the country in the Vietnam War.

Up until this point, there had been limited contact between the communist forces of Vietnam and Cambodia, as the Vietnamese accepted Sihanouk as the rightful government of Cambodia. But after the coup, Sihanouk allied himself with Pol Pot and the KR against those who had overthrown him, and Vietnamese communists offered their full support to the KR in their fight against the US-backed government.

The KR were thus legitimated as an anti-imperialist movement.

As the aforementioned CIA Intelligence Information Cable notes:

The [Khmer Rouge] cadre tell the people the Government of Lon Nol has requested the airstrikes and is responsible for the damage and the “suffering of innocent villagers” in order to keep himself in power. The only way to stop “the massive destruction of the country” is to remove Lon Nol and return Prince Sihanouk to power. The proselyting cadres tell the people that the quickest way to accomplish this is to strengthen KI forces so they will be able to defeat Lon Nol and stop the bombing.

In January 1973, the United States, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and South Vietnamese communist forces signed the Paris Peace Accords. US forces withdrew from Vietnam, and the bombings of Vietnam and Laos were discontinued.

Yet the Nixon administration continued bombing Cambodia in order to defend Lon Nol’s government against KR forces. Facing intense domestic and congressional opposition, Nixon was forced to end the campaign in August 1973 after reaching a deal with Congress.

For the next year and a half, civil war continued to rage between the government and the KR. The KR succeeded in capturing numerous provinces and large areas of the countryside, and they finally took control of Phnom Penh in April 1975.

Supporting the Khmer Rouge The geopolitical map was in flux after the Vietnam War — North Vietnam installed a provisional government in South Vietnam until the country was reunified in 1976, and Washington was determined to isolate the communist government. At the same time, the United States sought closer relations with China as a way of redistributing global power away from the Soviet Union; it saw Cambodia as a potentially useful counterweight.

In November 1975 — seven months after KR forces seized control of Phnom Penh — Henry Kissinger said to Thailand’s foreign minister that he “should tell [the KR] that we bear no hostility towards them. We would like them to be independent as a counterweight to North Vietnam.” Kissinger added that he “should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.”

A month later, in discussions between President Gerald Ford, Kissinger, and Suharto (the US-backed dictator of Indonesia), Ford noted: “We are willing to move slowly in our relations with Cambodia, hoping perhaps to slow down the North Vietnamese influence although we find the Cambodian government very difficult.” Kissinger echoed these sentiments, saying “we don’t like Cambodia, for the government in many ways is worse than Vietnam, but we would like it to be independent. We don’t discourage Thailand or China from drawing closer to Cambodia.”

But the KR would largely chart an isolationist course, concentrating instead on its project of building a self-sufficient, agrarian society that ended in mass murder.

At the end of 1978, in an escalation of border disputes between the countries, Vietnam invaded Cambodia and toppled the KR government in early 1979. KR forces fled to western Cambodia on the Thai border to begin a guerrilla campaign against the new, Vietnamese-installed Cambodian government. The genocide the KR had orchestrated was over, but now self-serving foreign parties, including the United States and China, chose to support the KR guerrillas in their campaign against the Vietnamese occupation, as part of an overall policy of isolating Vietnam.

A key method to achieving this end was US support for overt Chinese aid to the KR guerillas. As the New York Times reported, “the Carter administration helped arrange continued Chinese aid” to the KR guerillas. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, explained that he “encourage[d] the Chinese to support Pol Pot.” According to a report from the Associated Press, US intelligence agencies estimated that China supplied KR guerrillas with about $100 million of military aid per year throughout the 1980s.

In recognizing them as the legitimate government of Cambodia and seating them at the United Nations, the United States, China, and several other European and Asian countries also gave diplomatic support to the KR. The United States even refused to call what the KR had done from 1975–1979 genocide until 1989, so as not to hinder efforts to back the guerrilla movement.

Support came in other ways. According to Kiernan, the United States spent tens of millions of dollars funding guerrillas allied with KR forces throughout the 1980s and pressured UN relief agencies to supply additional “humanitarian” aid to feed and clothe the KR hiding out near the Thai border, thus enabling the KR to wage their campaign against the Vietnamese.

In 1989, Vietnam withdrew its troops from Cambodia. Two years later, nineteen governments (including the United States, China, Cambodia, and Vietnam) signed peace agreements with KR guerrillas and their allies to end the conflict. But US support for Pol Pot and the KR continued after the peace accords. It was not until 1997 “that the United States gave the green light to go after the elusive Khmer Rouge leader [Pol Pot].” Trials for KR leaders would have proven uncomfortable for multiple parties, not least for some in Washington.

Indeed, when the Khmer Rouge Tribunal (officially the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia) was finally established in 2003, after years of negotiations with the United Nations, it explicitly chose only to cover crimes committed by KR leaders while they were orchestrating the 1975–1979 genocide, ignoring US crimes that helped nurture and sustain the KR.

Victims of the Khmer Rouge have received little justice, and they are unlikely to ever see it. The great powers (particularly the United States) have no interest in providing an honest accounting of why the KR came to power in the first place, or how the United States supported them and shielded them from justice for decades, even after they were driven from power.

Any lessons to be drawn about the consequences of US intervention in Cambodia do not appear to have been learned: as the journalist John Pilger has pointed out, just as the massive destruction of Cambodia by the US bombing campaign helped create the conditions for the KR’s ascension, the US invasion of Iraq similarly destroyed a society and set the stage for the rise of ISIS. And just as the United States supported its former enemies in Cambodia against Vietnam throughout the 1980s, Washington entered into a tacit alliance with jihadist groups in Syria against Bashar al-Assad’s government.

Indeed, if we can expect anything from US foreign policy, it’s atrocities and complicity, cloaked in the language of democracy and human rights.

[thelegendofclarke]

jewishpolitics replied to your post

Well clearly you’re not as smart or clever as you think you are since facts aren’t based on your emotions. Harvard study showed that gun control doesn’t work. London is now considered a dangerous city despite lack of gun access. Australia has actually had in recent years an increases in gun ownership.

Basic civics suggests that the right to bear arms is simply that. Taking away my right to own a firearm doesn’t prevent criminals from getting guns. But I guess if you want to help the black market boost a profit go for it.

Oh man, okay then. Let’s unpack this shall we...

“Harvard study showed that gun control doesn’t work.”

If the “Harvard study” you are referencing is the one I think it is, then, as has been widely acknowledged by the legal community, calling it a “study” is a pretty damn generous application (or misapplication, as the case may be) of the word. 

The paper in question was not peer-reviewed or vetted at all. The use of the term “study” to refer to that 2007 article dishonestly suggests that the assertions made by its authors were gathered and vetted under more rigorous study conditions. As someone who has been an editor of and written for a law journal, the papers published in law journals are in no way equivalent to peer-reviewed research conducted on a defined group or variable published in a credible science-related journals as “studies.”

The authors, Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser, were clearly writing from a pro-gun biased position. Don Kates is literally the civil liberties lawyer retained by the NRA; he is one of the foremost litigators, criminologists and scholars on the Second Amendment and the fundamental right to self-defense and the individual right to keep and bear arms in the country. He has written several pro-gun books (Armed: New Perspectives On Gun Control, Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy, and The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence) and is known as the “Johnnie Cochran of pro-gun lobbyists.” Mauser is also a famous gun rights advocate. Additionally, his background is in political marketing research and he has written 2 books on the subject, Political Marketing Approach to Campaign Strategy and Manipulating Public Opinion: Essays on Public Opinion As a Dependent Variable. This is not to say that Kates and Mauser were not allowed to write from a biased perspective, every article ever published is written from the subjective, biased viewpoint of it’s author. But it also means that you can’t just say “a Harvard study said this so that proves it’s true.” I know it may be a special ~challenge~ but maybe try thinking critically for like 10 min. 

Also, there has been significant criticism of the article’s potentially misleading quotes and citations of source information such as this 2002 CDC Report (First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws) which actually explicitly conflicted with the authors’ assertions that a conclusion had been drawn from the study that supported their own thesis. 

AND, the director of Harvard’s own Injury Control Research Center Dr. David Hemenway has been highly and publicly critical of the article’s flaws in correlating higher rates of gun ownership with lower crime rates: “The paper itself is not a scientific article, but a polemic, making the claim that gun availability does not affect homicide or suicide. It does this by ignoring most of the scientific literature, and by making too many incorrect and illogical claims.”

“London is now considered a dangerous city despite lack of gun access.”

My favorite part about this is the “now” part. London is now considered a dangerous city. Like, it was totally fine before! Nothing bad ever used to happen in London! But NOW, hide your kids hide your wives! London is dangerous now!

“Australia has actually had in recent years an increases in gun ownership.”

I can’t find anything at all that confirms that this is actually, in fact, true. But, just for fun, let’s assume it is! Even if this were true, the relevant facts still don’t support your argument.

The important distinction in this case isn’t the number of guns owned, but the types of guns owned. In 1996 (after a mass shooting, the last in Australia’s history imagine that!), Australia banned automatic and semi-automatic, self-loading assault rifles and shotguns, and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. In 2002, Australia further tightened gun laws, restricting the caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns. So, to put it simply, no civilian is permitted to own any type of weapon capable of carrying out a mass shooting. No automatic weapons, no semi automatic weapons, no assault rifles, no bump stock devices. This is not that hard. 

Also, while this may be a hard pill to swallow, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Australias gun laws and buy back programs have worked...

13 mass shootings occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths. In the 14 following years (and up to the present), there have been no mass shootings.

In the 7 years before the NFA, the avg. annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was approx. 2.6. In the years after the buyback was fully implemented, the avg. annual firearm suicide rate has stayed between approx. .8 and 1.4. 

In the seven years before the NFA, the avg. annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was approx. .43. In the years since the NFA was implemented, the average annual firearm homicide rate has been approx. .25, and sometimes even dropped as low as .16. 

The drop in firearm related deaths (homicide, suicide, and accidental) was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the NFA and buyback program. 

“Basic civics suggests that the right to bear arms is simply that.”

Actually, up until pretty recently (i.e. 2008), the “right to bear arms” was understood to be a right pertaining to a “well regulated Militia,” and not an individual right. The Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and established as an individual right protected against the federal, state, and local governments until the U.S. Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller. 

Honestly for a group of people who screech about “basic civics” and “common sense” so much, y’all seem to have very little understanding or proficiency in either area. 

[renaroo]

This is so completely random, but you're very probably the only Batfam Stan that also loves the Superfam and knows the various members of both families. I was wondering, in your mind, which members of the Superfamily match up with which members of the Batfamily? Like for instance, I've always firmly believed that Linda-Mae matches up with Dick, while Karen goes with Helena. As far as Babs goes, they share her.

If I’m reading you correctly, you’re asking who roughly inhabits the same spots in the Superfam that the Batfam has, yes? It’s really a fascinating question because I think there are lots of comparisons to be made, but it’s also interesting because of the ways they don’t line up perfectly. Like there’s a big difference in their structure just by the fact that Lois is the clear matriarch of the family and almost none of the Superfam have been without a relationship with her. So getting comparisons for some positions does tend to get a little fuzzy. So, I’m just going to go through the family one by one, starting with the most obvious which is Clark and Bruce. 

Clark Kent: Obviously as the central family patriarch and the one who basically inspires everyone else to come into their own while attempting to live up to his impossible image, Clark is the most Bruce-like in comparisons. Which of course, their similarities are as strong as their differences which has been the source of their mutual respect and friendship over the decades and just make them incredibly fascinating characters to play off of each other in almost any circumstance. 

Lois Lane: In recent years Kate has kind of stepped up to be the momma of the Batfam in a sense, and to be Bruce’s equal which would be representative of Lois and Clark’s equal footing in their relationship, but Kate’s got much less of a background for this position and for obvious reasons her relationship with Bruce is nothing like Lois’. In that way I would put Lois much more as a Selina Kyle. They share a street smarts and sassiness, prefer to look out for themselves but can’t help but fall into the same circles as their romantic interests, and in most realities end up married. It’s not a perfect fit, but I would argue it on more than a few grounds. 

Jimmy Olsen: Definitely the Dick Grayson of the Superfam. Not only is he Superman’s pal, but he’s sort of the emotional bond that keeps a lot of the Superfam connected. He’s not only trusted by both Clark and Lois and inspired by both of them, but he’s also a confidante and romantic interest for Kara, was a friend to Linda, and in general is someone who is just by definition associated with Superman. It’s an iconic duo in a lesser sense than Bruce and Dick. 

Martha Kent: Originally I was going to say Pa is the Alfred, but honestly Martha Kent is most definitely the Alfred Pennyworth of the Superfamily. She is a supportive and endearing voice, full of wit, and is the first person Clark goes to when he needs advice or solace. She is beloved by all of the Superfam members and has ben denmother/actual mother to nearly all of them in one sense or another. 

Jonathan Kent: The more I think about it, the more I find that Pa is really a lot like Leslie Thompkins in Clark’s life. He has a bit of a harsher vibe to him and his disappointment is something that Clark is more conscious and fearful of, but it all stems from firm morality and a fear and protectiveness of his son. He is the guiding light for Clark’s humanity and is the sort of man that Clark tries to live up to without ever feeling he can fully achieve it. And all that despite clearly having well defined flaws of his own. 

Lana Lang: Hilariously enough, I would put Lana on the level of a far more important and far more relevant and updated Vicki Vale. Again this seems like a strained comparison (because it is) but she’s a former romantic interest and friend to Clark who loves him but also couldn’t deal as well with realizing that he is Superman or at least that he’s something beyond her comprehension. And there’s still some pining and nonsense there, fortunately Lana is with John Henry now and written much better. Speaking of which...

John Henry Irons: A less murdery and more accepted member of the Superfam than his Batfam equivalent, John Henry Irons is a lot like Helena Bertinelli in that they both were inspired by the “patriarchs” of the family, but did things in their own style and in their own ways. He relies on his background and heritage as much as Helena does and it has influenced him to where he is today. 

Kara Zor-El: An apt comparison for Kara is actually Barbara Gordon. Not only were they good friends in the Bronze Age, but they were similarly motivated. Despite both of them having just as much heartbreak and tragedy in their lives as Batman or Superman, they make the choice to not be defined by that and instead to invent their superhero identities as a way of fulfilling an obligation they feel either to law and order or to the sense of not wanting to lose their adopted new home to the same forces that took their old one. 

Natasha Irons: Is absolutely the Superfam’s Stephanie Brown for better or worse. Nat is selfmade, has a family history of criminal activity but chooses to follow her uncle and Superman’s influences instead to make herself a superhero. Despite all she achieves, for absolutely no reason that makes canonical sense to... anyone who’s read it, basically, John abruptly decides she’s undeserving of her suit and takes it from her? That causes her to make some mistakes and play into a trap by one of the family’s worst enemies and get held hostage and tortured. Fortunately she wasn’t needlessly killed like Steph, but she did come back in spectacular fashion. 

Mae Kent: Mae is a completely different character from Linda Danvers. Mostly. Kind of. So I’m going to treat them as such on this list. Mae is actually Clark’s adopted sister in the preboot and was taken in and cared for by Ma and Pa Kent. She’s fairly independent, making a name for herself outside of Clark even if they continued to have a good relationship. When Clark dies for a year, she is one of the top contenders for taking his place and becoming a surrogate Superman herself. In this way she most reminds me of Kate Kane, self-made while deeply connected to the family patriarch and sharing a family bond. 

Karen Starr: Completely depends on which version you’re going with but if you’re going with the most common, the preboot, I think Karen is the most like Harper Row. She’s a solid member of the family, but she’s also beyond the family, and it’s not in a bad sense. She’s still connected to everyone, and every inventive and set apart almost purely based on her industriousness (making her business empire!) but as much as she does team up with everyone and join frays, she’s mostly off on her own adventures these days and most of her drama comes from civilian life rather than just her time as Power Girl.

Kon-El: This is going to be so freaking controversial but here we are. If I was to pick any analogue in the Batfam for Kon it would not be his best bud Tim, but his fellow leap-before-thinking, bit of a bad boy, fellow leather jacket wearing Jason Todd. They both like coming back from the dead and having inexplicable genre jumps throughout their histories and their main angst comes from a conflict of ideals and perspectives with their parental figures. Kon also is constantly concerned with going over the edge and turning to a villain because of his “bad genes” which reminds me a lot of how Jason felt judged for growing up and being born into a situation outside of his control. 

Linda Danvers: It’s a bit of a cheat since they’re my favorite heroes I grew up with at the time, but when I think of Linda I always think of Cassandra Cain. Linda was not born into an abusive home life, but she was part of an abusive relationship and made mistakes that eventually led to a death. Unlike Cass, however, Linda’s death was her own. That was the turning point in her origins and from that point on she was led to being Supergirl out of not just a weird combining with Mae but through discovering a deeper level of morality and humanity than she had once seen inside of herself. And that became such a strong light in her life, she was even able to inspire the redemption of the very demon that had been responsible for her murder. 

Traci Thirteen: It might be a bit early to call this, but I think Duke Thomas is the most positioned in the Batfam with Traci. Traci initially was a pretty independent character who mostly worked under the “advisement” of Clark and came into her own with her own identity and style. They both have good families they lose to tragic circumstances and slowly find their place within the gaggle of other children in their families. 

Maggie Sawyer: Like I’m not saying it’s a purely lesbian thing, but it’s kind of the lesbian friend detective in the force who goes above and beyond and may or may not be a hero in their own right thing that I compare Maggie Sawyer and Renee Montoya. It’s a thing. And it’s a thing that unites them because they both have banged Kate Kane. Which is the real dream.

Cir-El: My poor sweet daughter is of course far too similar and too unused much like my other dear sweet daughter, Helena Wayne. They are both daughters of the matriarch and patriarch of the family from alternate futures that may or may not ever happen. They hold their father’s values and their mother’s attitudes and they both have awful terrible first costumes. 

Chris Kent: Even though their personalities are starkly different, there is definitely a common thread between Chris and Damian Wayne. They come from troubling childhoods and have difficulties with the concept of unconditional love. Their only aspirations are to live up to expectations and take the mantles of their respective fathers. And for as much trouble as it may cause them they stand up against the villains they fear most in the final hour even under threat of pain or death. They both have a “I choose my real family” moment with a parent that mistreats them, too. 

Jon Kent: This may seem like an odd comparison for now, but I get a Tim Drake vibe from Jon. Hear me out, there’s a lot of superhero worship and naivety about what his new superhero identity is going to bring with it. And while he’s much younger and less detectively minded than Tim, Jon draws on his knowledge of his father’s legacy as well as what he observes from his friends and other superheroes around him to creatively get himself out of jams. Not to mention he loves giving those moralizing speeches. 

Perry White: He’s Jim Gordon. Next.

Krypto the Superdog: THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS. Ace doesn’t go out much into the field anymore so the most apt comparison here is actually Goliath the Bat Dragon. Aaaaand that’s what I’ve got. 

I hope this all made sense I had fun writing it out lol

[rightsinexile]

NGO Statement on International Protection at ExCom standing Committee 69th Session

STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER’S PROGRAMME

69th Session

28-30 June 2017

 NGO Statement on International Protection 

Agenda item 2(a) 

Mr. Chair, Ladies and Gentlemen, 

This statement has been drafted in consultation with, and is delivered on behalf of, a wide range of NGOs and aims to reflect the diversity of views within the NGO community. Mr. Chair, since last year’s Standing Committee Meeting on Protection, we have seen highs and lows. The highest high was unquestionably the 19 and 20 September summits demonstrating global solidarity in response to large movements of refugees and migrants. In turn, there were several lows: divisive politics scapegoating refugees and migrants, shocking cases of asylum seekers and refugees being turned away (refoulement), increased detention of asylum seekers, the bombing of the Rann IDP settlement in Northern Nigeria, abduction of UNHCR staff in Sudan, shrinking protection space, serious gaps in asylum and reception systems, growing asylum backlogs, sexual assault and physical violence suffered by people on the move, tragic deaths at sea and by land, and a forecasted reduction (rather than expansion) of the total number of resettlement slots on offer. Given the scope of forced displacement today, we would like to draw the Standing Committee members’ attention to five key aspects we believe are central to international protection. 

First and foremost, we reaffirm the central importance of international protection and the principle of non-refoulement. 

Based on the 1951 Refugee Convention, UNHCR’s core mandate is to ensure the international protection of uprooted people worldwide. Yet, in many parts of the world refugee protection is not enshrined in legislation, is woefully under-resourced or wilfully ignored, and in particular instances actively undermined by policies and actions which fail to meet minimum standards in humanitarian response. 

NGOs are concerned that in South Sudan ruthless military tactics have driven a massive exodus of asylum seekers into Uganda, as the South Sudanese army acts with impunity against the civilian population. Uganda has demonstrated tremendous willingness to receive refugees, but NGO and governmental capacities are being pushed to the breaking point, risking effective protection. 

NGOs remain concerned about the exodus from Pakistan of Pakistani Ahmadis and Christians due to national blasphemy laws, ongoing persecution, and the targeted killing of minorities. These refugees, like many others around the globe, suffer further mistreatment, indefinitely held in administrative detention centers in third countries, deprived of fundamental rights essential to protection. 

UNHCR states in its note that it observed pushbacks in Central Europe and the Western Balkans, but also in other parts of the world. At the June 2017 UNHCR-NGO Annual Consultations, the Assistant High Commissioner for Protection mentioned non-refoulement as the “core of the core” of protection. Non-refoulement is binding on all States at all times, even if they are not party to the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol. The NGO community calls on all governments to respect, in all circumstances, the principle of non-refoulement. 

Second, we wish to raise the importance of statelessness in our discussions on international protection. 

The existence of about 10 million stateless people today represents a serious failure to provide protection at the national, regional and international levels. To achieve UNHCR’s stated goal to end statelessness by 2024, NGOs call upon States to put in place robust safeguards for preventing and addressing statelessness and protecting stateless persons through legal frameworks. NGOs urge States to strengthen support of UNHCR’s #IBelong Campaign, the Coalition on Every Child’s Right to a Nationality, and the Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights. Finally and most importantly, NGOs call upon all States to accede to the Statelessness Conventions, and enact reforms of nationality laws that discriminate on the basis of gender, religion, ethnicity, and ability. Where needed, this would ensure special protection for vulnerable displaced women and children and that international legal obligations are upheld, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. 

UN agencies, including UNHCR, and civil society organisations must make available their expertise and capacities in other to support States in the application of their international protection obligations. States should call upon the assistance of partners in situations of crisis and/or when States are unable, due to circumstances or otherwise, until States authorities’ recovery. NGOs welcome the ongoing work on an ExCom Conclusion on Machine Readable Travel Documents, which is meant to focus on stateless people as well as refugees. Such travel documents can indeed bring concrete benefits for both categories through providing legal identity. Provided proper data protection measures are in place, issuance of such travel documents can improve access to rights, durable solutions and complementary pathways. 

NGOs welcome the fact that civil society perspectives were included in the informal briefing on technical and administrative aspects of travel documents organized on 29 May. NGOs continue to be ready for constructive engagement with ExCom members and UNHCR on this topic. NGOs also reiterate the position that a Conclusion on resilience and self-reliance, although postponed, should be covered by ExCom’s future workplan. 

Third, we want to highlight the issue of access to education, especially for refugee children and youth. 

Education is essential for the enjoyment of other refugee rights, and must remain an integral part of UNHCR’s Framework for the Protection of Children. We urge States to keep child protection a priority and to ensure the basic human rights of children are upheld at all levels, consistent with the principle of best interest of the child. This must include, among other things, early childhood development, providing quality basic and secondary education for refugee and displaced children to enable them to realize their full potential and equip them for the future. It is also important to provide an adequate curriculum and formal provision of legally recognised educational certificates and basic freedom of movement rights in order to pursue higher education where available. 

UNHCR and governments must provide greater attention to and resources for secondary education for refugee children, especially in protracted displacement situations. NGOs call on UNHCR and host countries to rapidly enlist the aid of development partners to provide funding for adequate classrooms and other facilities for refugees, recognising the value of engaging and providing access for host communities. 

Let’s recall that youth access to education was identified as one of the ten challenges for refugee youth following the 2016 UNHCR-NGO Consultations. The young refugees consistently identified the difficulty of obtaining recognition for their existing qualifications and accessing quality learning, formal education, and skills-building opportunities as a serious challenge, which should be addressed. 

NGOs commend UNHCR for its support of the Initiative for Child Rights in the Global Compacts, and call upon States to fully support this initiative, including specific support for Goal 5: ensuring access to basic services for all refugee and migrant children, including access to health, education, and psychosocial services. 

Fourth, resettlement and complementary pathways are central protection mechanisms that must be enhanced. 

In 2015, less than one per cent of the 16 million refugees and asylum seekers worldwide were resettled. While the focus should be on sharing responsibility, States tend to evade that responsibility through border control, ‘securitization’, and low acceptance quotas. Canada’s very robust, privately sponsored refugee program enables Canadian people and communities to directly sponsor refugees. This initiative should be replicated, and States should ensure private and community sponsorship programmes come not within but in addition to resettlement quotas. Community-based resettlement and pathways have proven to be most effective and comforting for refugees. 

We urge States and UNHCR to make the refugee status determination and resettlement process more comprehensive and efficient so that the refugee experience is minimized, and resettlement can take place sooner and for greater numbers. NGOs look forward to working with UNHCR and international and national organisational partners to establish ways to strengthen our joint capacities. UNHCR must support NGOs working towards the CRRF objectives and urge States to adequately support host communities and the self-reliance of refugees. This should be prioritized along with possibilities of viable third country resettlement and effective local integration, ensuring refugee rights and pathways to naturalisation. The CRRF also puts significant emphasis on returns as part of durable solutions for refugees. 

In this perspective, NGOs wish to stress the importance of the principle of voluntariness. For many refugees the decision to return is often combined with a range of factors leading to concerns that repatriations might have been neither entirely voluntary, nor dignified. It is also important to ensure the sustainability of reintegration. Reports about, for example, Afghanistan and Somalia indicate that returns occurred over the past year in unfavorable conditions, thus questioning the volunariness and sustainability. 

Fifth, and finally, partnership is crucial. 

Mr. Chair, UNHCR fittingly concludes its note on international protection by emphasizing the importance of partnership in advancing protection – partnership with States, partnership with other organizations, and partnership with civil society. NGOs can play a complementary role in advancing protection. We have taken forward commitments made during the June 2016 UNHCR-NGO Annual Consultations focused on youth, the December 2016 High Commissioner’s Dialogue on Children on the Move, and Structured Dialogue partnership workshops in Tanzania (October 2016), San Salvador (November 2016) and Greece (December 2016). We have followed the process of UNHCR’s internal review of how it operationalizes protection responses to IDPs. We have mobilized in the run-up to the 19 September Summit, and are now working to advance the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework and eventual Global Compact on Refugees. This is the tenth anniversary of the Principles of Partnership, and these Principles could serve as the basis for moving forward with the CRRF’s “whole of society” approach, which we look forward to discussing further during agenda item 5. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[thejoshscogin]

In most tragic events, both global and regional, I typically like to do my part to assist or help, while remaining in the background. Whether it is donating money, protesting, physically building houses, traveling out to give food and water to people, or any other potential aid I am able to contribute...these are done as “under the radar” as possible. Because, I am not usually a fan of the “look at me“ spotlight mentality, while the issues of the world should be getting the spotlight.

Now, I understand it is 2020 and “If you didn’t Gram it, it didn’t happen!“ but as a very private-introvert with a very strong moral compass, I personally don’t need the verification from social media to affirm my actions. Or, to put it more correctly, I don’t need the verification of social media to stroke an ego. In short, social media can often (but not always) take advantage of the “Never let a good crisis go to waste“ dogma. It can feel more about gaining “LIKES” and followers and a general “look at what I did“ pat-on-the-back, than focusing on the real issue at hand.

With all of that being said, this time it feels different. I’m still contributing in areas that I’m able, but the overwhelming morality of making it clear where I stand, outweighs the morality of not seeking vanity/self-aggrandizement. Obviously I’m still NOT here for vanity/self-aggrandizement but keeping in the background doesn’t feel like the correct path to take on this particular event dealing with race and humanity. So let me be clear.

The short version goes like this…

- I support Black Lives Matter! (duh)

- I support peaceful protests of civilians.

- I don’t support the violent looting and destruction of properties, but I understand them. I’ll speak more on that later.

- I don’t support the riots brought on by the police.

- I don’t support any authoritarian/dictator/tyrant in office that tries to hinder or remove our freedom of speech.

The long version goes like this…

I love America, or to put it more correctly, I love the potential of America. I have been fortunate enough to travel around the world many, many times (sweet brag Josh 😑) and there are so many wonderful places on this planet I would love to live but I always return home, to America.

We are not perfect (duh, no country is) and the harsh truth is that we will probably never fully end racism. I reckon there will always be idiots who hate other humans for something as pointless as skin color or as trivial as “Your pants are too tight.” or (insert any other juvenile scenario) but as Americans, if we feel like those idiots have become the people in power (police, leaders, presidents etc etc.) we have the right to freedom of speech. We have the right to voice our feelings against authority, and make a change. We have the right to protest.

Now let me be very clear, I am a full believer in peace! I believe that hate breeds more hate. I believe that violence breeds more violence. So, when these protests turn into looting and destruction of properties, it can feel like those people have lost the focus of the original task at hand. However, I also understand that when the pendulum has been so far on one side for so long, it is only natural for it to swing to the other side with brute force. Also, when the (very) peaceful protests of people like Colin Kaepernick are ignored, and in many ways punished, I can fully understand why stronger actions are felt justified and needed.

As Americans, we have the right to raise our voice when we see something needs to be corrected. So, when the peaceful, “indoor voice”, of the calm and collected Kaepernick doesn’t reach the ears of the giants in power ...or to put it more correctly, when it reaches the ears of the giants in power and yet, is completely ignored... it is only a matter of time before America feels like only a scream will suffice.

We must not forget that Kaepernick originally sat on the bench during the national anthem. It was only later that he decided it would be MORE respectful if he joined his team mates on the field and simply took a knee. I don’t know how he could have protested in a more peaceful (and respectful) way. That was like 4 or maybe 5 years ago, and yet, here we are. He tried. He gave peace a chance. Yet, here we are.

The cyclical tragedy of what happened to George Floyd is a real shame to the American powers that be. If only real measures and actions would’ve been taken from the lessons that should have been learned from Breonna Taylor or Freddie Gray or Eric Garner or Michael Brown or any of these people below (to name a few) with very similar scenarios.

Now I don’t even claim to know how to instantly fix these problems, but there are a few basic things that sure seem like it would have at least helped. First of all, people should have been fired! Not just those directly dealing with the deaths but any and all police officers who had a history of racism or known violent tendencies, they should have been fired, all across the nation. Secondly, real actions should have been taken after these events. I understand that eventually things like body cameras etc. came into affect but what’s the point, if it’s okay to just turn them off whenever they feel like it, with no repercussions in doing so.

Side Note: Hey cops, if you feel the need to turn your cameras off, then you are doing something wrong. If you feel the need to cover up your badge in anyway, then you are doing something wrong. If you feel the need to force other people with cameras to leave the scene, then you are doing something wrong. And there should be deep and drastic consequences for any cops doing any of the above mentioned. Also, to be clear, I am not necessarily anti-cop (in theory). I know a few cops and in fact, I feel like some of our other issues of today’s police force might have been sorted or at least minimized if, a long time ago, we would have paid cops a whole lot more money. But that’s a topic for another time and not on social media. End of side note:

1991 is the first scenario I can personally remember of police brutality of an unarmed black man that became very publicized. If only dramatic measures would have been taken from the lessons that should have been learned from way back when Rodney King was in the spotlight. Imagine what nearly 30 years of progress would look like today if we would have started it back then. Our situation now, would be very different and I could assume many lives would have been spared and generally just an overall quality-of-life would be better. Shame on the powers that be, that nearly 30 years later we are still watching, shot for shot, the exact same movie unfold again and again. It blows my mind that we are still dealing with the vastness of this issue.

So where do we go from here? What are some productive steps towards ending police brutality on black people? Well, unfortunately, the quickest and most sustainable solutions would have to come from the top. If the police chiefs of the nation would fire all of the racist idiots, there would be an instant and obvious difference in the right direction. I have more thoughts on that but, assuming there is no Chief of police reading this, I’ll save you the time...

As civilians, there are still things that can be done to assist the steps to getting us further towards the right direction. Since the majority of the people reading this are most likely NOT the closed-minded-racists who are the problems, the solutions can seem less direct but every step (big or small) in the correct direction adds up.

In the short term, I think the most direct thing you can do is to donate money or protest if you are able. If you are someone in power then you should fire all the racist idiots. I’m not just talking about the police force. If you are an employer of any sort, you should remove the bad apples and do your best to never hire them in the first place.

In the long term I think the best actions are to vote! Or, to put it more correctly, study up on politicians, know where they stand on topics that are important to you, and then VOTE! Please, for the love of America, don’t JUST VOTE without the due diligence. Vote big, like the presidential candidates etc. Vote small, like local jurisdictions and authorities etc. Lastly, I think it is very important to mix and mingle with folks outside of your top 8. It will do you good, it will do our country good. As I mentioned before, if you are reading this then you’re likely already fairly open minded but just remember, it can be a subtle and steady danger to ONLY communicate with the same inner sanctum of people that believe the exact same intricacies as you do. Communicate with lots of people, with lots of backgrounds. Diversify, and remember, communication is a dialogue not a monologue.

There are so many other things that can be done. These are just the first few that popped in my head.

Last thing and then I’m out. I do believe we will come out on the other side of this better than when we went in. The death of George Floyd is a tragedy and it is compounded by all of the previous tragedies that took place before him, regardless if they got publicity or not. But, look around, we are not sitting idly by.

When we all share the same voice and sing the same song, the mountains can be moved.

I would love to, in my lifetime, live in a country where every human felt safe, respected and appreciated. I would love to, in my lifetime, live in a nation where we celebrated all of our extensive differences. I would love to, in my lifetime, live in a land where the police were there to protect and the police were there serve. And I would love to, in my lifetime, have all humans feel truly equal. Change is coming. Or, to put it more correctly, change is upon us.

Sincerely,

Josh Scogin

“Your old road is rapidly agin'

Please get out of the new one

If you can't lend your hand

For the times they are a-changin' “

-Bob Dylan

[derechointernacionalpublico]

Ukraine v Russia at the ICJ Hearings on Indication of Provisional Measures: Who Leads?

Ukraine v Russia at the ICJ Hearings on Indication of Provisional Measures: Who Leads?

From the day Ukraine submitted its case against Russia at the ICJ, one could expect that the case would be extremely politicized and difficult to adjudicate. Oral proceedings on the request for provisional measures held on 6th -9th March 2017 not only demonstrated that parties disagreed on the major points of the dispute, but also revealed that both parties had adopted “alternative facts”, at times making it difficult to grasp if they actually had the same dispute in mind. Ukraine’s position is that Russia violates ICSFT by continuing to support pro-Russian separatist armed groups in eastern Ukraine that engage in the commission of terrorist acts against the civilian population. Ukraine also claims that Russia pursues “policies of cultural erasure and pervasive discrimination” against non-Russian ethnic population in Crimea (see my blog). In its counter-arguments, Russia submits that the supply of weaponry originated from the old Soviet stockpiles inherited by Ukraine as well as the retreating Ukrainian army. Although widespread reports on the human rights situation in Crimea indicate marginalization of non-Russian ethnic population, as do the hundreds of pending individual applications before the ECtHR, Russia maintains that it is fully compliant with CERD and that “the views [of international organizations] on the status of Crimea often prejudge the attitude towards the situation in Crimea itself”.

Oral proceedings provide valuable insights into Russia’s litigation strategy. Russia maintains that there is no factual or legal basis for the ICJ to adjudicate, claiming that the issues between Ukraine and Russia relate to the legality of the use of force, sovereignty, territorial integrity and self-determination and therefore go beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. Russia accused the Ukrainian government of using the Court “to stigmatize a substantial part of the Ukrainian population” in eastern Ukraine as terrorists, and Russia as a “sponsor of terrorism and persecutor”.

Prima facie jurisdiction

The ICJ has to be satisfied on a prima facie basis that its jurisdiction is well founded in order to indicate provisional measures. In relation to the fulfilment of jurisdictional prerequisites provided for in Article 24 of ICSFT, Ukraine argues that Russia ignored central issues to the dispute and therefore, it could not have reasonably been expected “to continue participating in fruitless negotiation sessions”. In turn, Russia argues that Ukraine did not engage in negotiations bona fide, as the only objective it had allegedly pursued was to take Russia to the Court. Russia further submits that during the negotiations, when the parties were in the course of agreeing on yet another round of negotiations, Ukraine unilaterally walked away from the negotiations.

Regarding the parties’ negotiations on arbitration, Ukraine submits that the parties were unable to agree on the organization of arbitration in the six-month period provided by the Convention. Russia claims that although it produced the full draft of an arbitration agreement, Ukraine never responded with specific comments on the draft (this was later denied by Ukraine). Despite different accounts of the attempted arbitration proceedings, it appears that the parties engaged in the negotiations. Nonetheless, they were unable to agree either on the arbitration setup or on the enforcement of a possible arbitral award. Of particular interest is that Ukraine suggested setting up an arbitral tribunal within the meaning of Article 24 of ICSFT by way of creation of an ad hoc chamber of the ICJ with subsequent enforcement of the future arbitral award through the UNSC under Article 94(2) of the UN Charter. Ukraine appears to have conflated an arbitral tribunal with the ad hoc chamber of the Court that delivers judgments of the Court but not arbitral awards that could be enforced through the UNSC. This begs the question if the arbitration mechanism within the meaning of Article 24 of ICSFT was attempted at all, given Ukraine’s suggestion to institute the ad hoc chamber of the ICJ for the purposes of such proceedings.

With respect to Article 22 of CERD, Ukraine submits that despite extensive diplomatic correspondence and three rounds of negotiations, Russia “never provided straight and specific responses on the issues raised by the Ukrainian side”. Russia maintains that Ukraine did not engage in bona fide negotiations and “abruptly decided to end the consultations” in December 2016. During the oral proceedings, Russia was advancing arguments on Ukraine’s practice of discrimination of Crimean tatars prior to the annexation of Crimea, while providing examples as to how the situation regarding the protection of minority rights has improved after Crimea became part of Russia. Although the parties have placed different emphases on various factual circumstances surrounding the human rights situation in Crimea, there appears to exist a dispute between the parties on the interpretation and application of CERD, as the acts alleged by Ukraine are capable of infringing upon the rights enshrined in CERD (in the words of ICJ Georgia v Russia, Order on Provisional Measures, para 112). It should be sufficient at this stage that Ukraine attempted to initiate discussions with Russia on issues that fall under CERD (ibid., para. 114)

Plausibility of The Most Disputed Claims under ICFST

The most interesting part of the proceedings relates to the parties’ exchange regarding the plausibility of claims under ICFST. Two major points of contention deserve particular attention. The first one relates to the prohibition of state financed terrorism that, as argued by Russia, was not contemplated by the drafters of the Convention. ICFST does not explicitly impose an obligation upon a state to refrain from rendering its support for terrorism, as it only speaks of an obligation in the prevention of the terrorism financing offences, as well as an obligation to cooperate in order to investigate and prosecute those offences. However, an obligation not to engage in the terrorism offences on the part of a state, although not explicitly mentioned, appears to be implied. In that respect, Ukraine was right to seek inspiration from the ICJ Bosnian Genocide case where the ICJ found that an obligation not to commit genocide follows from the expressly stated obligation to prevent the commission of genocide (ICJ Bosnian case, para 166). One can hardly disagree with the ICJ that it would be “paradoxical” if states were only under an obligation to prevent, but “were not forbidden to commit such acts” (ibid). Although the Genocide Convention is different from the ICFST, it would be logical if similar reasoning prevailed in the context of the present case, since an obligation to prevent the terrorism financing offences should imply the prohibition of committing such offences.

Another important aspect of dispute concerns the interpretation of mens rea with respect to the terrorist acts listed in Ukraine’s application that Russia allegedly provided support for. Given that Ukraine alleges that specific incidents of shelling civilians, bombings in Kharkiv and shooting down of MH17 constitute the acts of terrorism within the meaning of Article 2(1) of ICFST that had been financed by Russia, it is unfortunate that Ukraine’s counsel was ambiguous in addressing the mens rea standard for the crime of terrorism and did not spend more time on showing the linkage between the alleged acts of terrorism and knowing financing of such acts. It is clear from the wording of ICFST that an act of terrorism may occur in the context of an armed conflict if “the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act”. In the context of ICFST, the ‘peacetime’ definition of terrorism was included as a catch-all definition of the primary offence with an added reference to an armed conflict. The mens rea in Article 2(1)(b) is twofold. First of all, it requires (1) the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian; and (2) purpose to intimidate a population or pursue certain political objective (dolus specialis). With respect to the first limb of mens rea, the counsel erroneously stated that recklessness would suffice. As to the second limb of mens rea, the counsel merely stated that the attacks listed in Ukraine’s application “would naturally intimidate Ukrainian civilians, and they arose in the context of a group that was seeking political concessions from their Government”. Even at this preliminary stage, the counsel could have made more effort to demonstrate the existence of dolus specialis with respect to the alleged acts of terrorism, as the lack of plausibility in that regard would simply make all Ukraine’s claims under ICFST fall apart. Ukraine might well follow the fate of Yugoslavia v Belgium where, at the stage of provisional measures hearings, the ICJ dismissed the Genocide Convention on a jurisdictional basis, since it was not satisfied that the bombings which formed the subject of the Yugoslav Application “indeed entail the element of intent, towards a group as such” as required by the definition of the crime of genocide (Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium), Order on Provisional Measures, paras 40-41).

There are a number of other interesting arguments advanced by Russia, in particular with respect to the absence of the element of discrimination regarding the alleged human rights violations in Crimea, as well as the absence of urgency to order provisional measures as they could interfere with peace processes (Minsk Agreements). All in all, it is a case to be watched, as it has the potential to offer answers on the interpretation of state obligations under CERD, although it is less likely that it will engage with a substantive discussion of Ukraine’s claims under ICFST.

  [via EJIL: Talk!]

http://www.dipublico.org/105450/ukraine-v-russia-at-the-icj-hearings-on-indication-of-provisional-measures-who-leads/