ISIS – the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – is one of the least funny organizations on the planet. From child trafficking to attempted genocide, everything they touch turns into a big steaming pile of tragedy. Things seem to be going pretty well for them, too. The West’s new boogeymen captured the city of Ramadi, Iraq, last month, and they appear to be drawing in new recruits slightly faster than American airstrikes can kill them.

But, the truly scary thing is that they seem to have just popped into existence overnight. How many of you had never even heard the term “ISIS” before last year? How is such a spontaneous mass of organized terror even possible? We were wondering that, too, so we sat down with a few people who were on the ground in Iraq during ISIS’s real-life supervillain origin story. We learned that, if we’re not the father of ISIS, the United States is at least some sort of uncle.

We Built Their Death Squads: ISIS’s Bizarre Origin Story

This joyful and amazing boy is Muhammed Abu Khadier … A year has passed since Abu Khdeir was snatched from the street outside his house while he was going for Fajr prayer. The 16-year-old Palestinian was kidnapped, beaten and driven to a forest in Jerusalem, where he was forced to drink benzine and burned alive by Israeli settlers!

How much?

I am very pro-life. Roe v Wade is a shameful abuse of both the US Constitution and the US conscience.

I would not pay one worthless American cent to this woman for this purpose… Because I do not negotiate with TERRORISTS.

This woman is sick. Vile, disgusting and criminally immoral. She is holding the life of her unborn child hostage to affect political change. Change that is, by the way, unnecessary as she admitted herself she can travel out of state for the procedure.

She has zero understanding of US federalism. She also, apparently, doesn’t realize she is responsible for her own actions, like getting pregnant in the first place.

By the way, to her and any who would scoff at abstinence (before marriage, before you’re ready and willing to have kids, what have you) or, gasp, using condoms… Are you willing to forgo all human rights? I ask because if you insist you must have sex wantonly and without obligation, you either suffer from psychological disorder(s) or, here’s some Dune-level sci-fi for you, YOU ARE NOT HUMAN.

Animals have urges, and they act on them. They can’t ignore or suppress them. Humans are supposed to be more capable. Willpower, volition, that sort of thing.

Food for thought.

By the way, my recommendation? Arrest and charge this scum with kidnapping, attempted murder, terrorism, whatever legally sticks, then imprison her, force her to carry the full pregnancy, a once she’s given birth, rescue that child to a foster home far, far away from his monster of a mother.

Anniversary of the US Navy missile attack to an Iranian Passenger Airplane on 3 July 1988, killing 290 Civilians, including 66 children  

27 years ago today, a U.S. Navy cruiser, USS Vincennes, shot down an Iranian civilian aircraft (Flight IR 655) over the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, killing all the 290 passengers and crew, including 66 children, on board. George H W Bush, the then-vice president of the U.S. proclaimed triumphantly and without a touch of remorse, “I will never apologise for the United States, ever. I don’t care what the facts are … I’m not an apologise-for-America kind of guy”.

No ‘Je Suis Charleston’?: The De-Politicization of Black Oppression

By Ajamu Baraka, Black Agenda Report

Where was the worldwide revulsion at the racist terror attack in Charleston? Obama sang ‘Amazing Grace’ and lulled into a stupefying silence Black voices that should have demanded answers as to why the Charleston attack was not considered a terrorist attack, even though it fit the definition of domestic terrorism. As a result, the political space for international solidarity with the plight of African Americans was significantly reduced. 

Meet The Wisconsin Conservative Busted For Threatening To Kill President Obama (SCREENSHOTS)

Meet The Wisconsin Conservative Busted For Threatening To Kill President Obama (SCREENSHOTS)

On Friday, 55-year-old Brian Dennis Dutcher was arrested for threatening to kill the President. According to a criminal complaint, as President Obama was knocking Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker down a peg or nine, Dutcher was telling a security guard at a La Crosse library: “The usurper is here and if I get a chance I’ll take him out and I’ll take the shot.” This chilling remark was not an idle…

View On WordPress



Tom Waits

Lord Ashdown: It is no longer the case that the nation state, acting alone, can determine its future

A little over 100 years ago, in the midst of the last conflict in which a collection of military primitives in a faraway mountainous country defeated the most powerful military force on earth—I refer of course to the Boer War and the British Army—AE Housman wrote the poem A Shropshire Lad. It is famous for marking the futility of war and its pity. What is sometimes a little overlooked is the fact that it was also predicted that we were seeing a change in the times. I draw your Lordships’ attention to one stanza in particular—which, by the way, was said to echo in Churchill’s brain in the 1930s:

On the idle hill of summer,Sleepy with the flow of streams,Far I hear the steady drummerDrumming like a noise in dreams.Far and near and low and louderOn the roads of earth go by,Dear to friends and food for powder,Soldiers marching, all to die.

What Housman seemed to identify was that the long sylvan summer of stability of the 19th century was drawing to a close. The years in which he wrote the poem marked the last great shift of power from the old nations of Europe to the new rising nation of the United States. In the vacuum left behind by the old powers of Europe was played out the two great, terrible Golgothas of the 20th century.

You might argue that history comes in two phases. In one of them, the gimbals on which power is mounted are steady, stable and unchanged—these are predictable times, times when we can look ahead with confidence and know what will happen. They are not necessarily peaceful times but they are at least unbewildering times. Then there are the second phases, which are the times of change, when power shifts—these are turbulent times, puzzling times and, all too often, bloody times. We are living through the second of those, not the first. All is changing, although you would not think so to look at our foreign policy or our defence policy, for they are anchored firmly in the past and pay no attention to the new world which is now emerging. In this speech, I want to talk about two of those power shifts and then a third element which I think changes everything and needs to be addressed if we really want a foreign policy that serves the interests of our country.

We are experiencing not one power shift but two. We are experiencing a vertical power shift. Power is now migrating out of the institutions of the nation state, created to hold power to democratic accountability and to legality, on to the global stage, where, by and large, the institutions of democratic accountability are non-existent and the institutions of legality are very weak. If we look at the global stage, we see that the powers that are growing are those that have no relevance, no reference, to the frontiers of nation states, and we see other things which by and large we like; for example, the free transfer of information over the internet, the free transfer of trade, the mass movement of people, the power of the satellite broadcasters and the power of this great, vast, swirling money-go-round now circulating at increasing velocity—a volume of money 52 times the amount necessary to fund the trade that it was all created for. We see also the power of the international speculators which nearly wrecked everything only a couple or three years ago.

For the powerful, generally speaking, having lawless spaces is not unhelpful—we rather enjoy it because we can make up the rules for ourselves—but, sooner or later, the lawless spaces get occupied by the destroyers and that is exactly what has happened. For in this space now is also terrorism, which is international; and crime, which is international. The revelation of 9/11 is that you may be the most powerful nation on earth, but it will not save you one bright September day from a faraway danger of which you knew little, which invades your own space and destroys your citizens by using your own systems. It is calculated that 60% of the $4 million taken to fund 9/11 passed through the financial institutions of the Twin Towers.

In what looks to me like a deeply turbulent age, our capacity to create greater stability rather than greater turbulence will depend on our capacity to bring governance to the global stage. There is a sort of rule about stable democracies which is: where power goes, governance must follow. It seems to me, therefore, that if it is true that the globalisation of unregulated power is one of the great threats of our time, then one of the great challenges of our time is to bring governance to the global space. It is entirely in the interests of a medium-sized country such as the United Kingdom for us to assist in making that happen. My own view is that this will not happen through the spawning of further multilateral UN institutions—we need the UN; if we did not have it, we would have to invent it; it is necessary as an international forum; it is necessary as a legitimiser and developer of international law; it is necessary as a legitimiser of actions—but when it comes to taking difficult action in non-permissive circumstances, my guess is that coalitions of the willing will have greater effect. When in Bosnia, I had to report twice a year to the UN Security Council for the conduct of my mandate, but my managing board was the Peace Implementation Council—those who had committed to peace in Bosnia.

As we develop systems of governance on the global stage, I think that they are more likely to be created through the growth of treaty-based institutions. We see those already emerging: the WTO is one; Kyoto is another; the International Court of Justice is a third; and the G20, which is not quite a treaty but it has quasi-treaty powers, is another. It must be in our interests for us Britons to create, and to play our part in the creation of, such new institutions that bring governance to the global stage. We are a medium-sized nation. David Miliband when Foreign Secretary used to talk about a rule-based world order. It must be in our interests to do that, yet this features nowhere in the Government’s foreign policies. We are not actively playing our role. British civil servants and diplomats were the people who created the United Nations; we have an immense role to play. But our response is not only to ignore it but to cut the budget of the Foreign Office at the very moment when it has a significant role to play in something that is of real interest to our nation.

The second great power shift, and I need hardly talk about it, is that from west to east. Put your hand over the side of the boat. Feel how strong that tide is running. It is an economic tide to date, for sure, but that will develop into political power and military power. Let us look at where defence budgets are being augmented and where they are being diminished: they are being diminished in the west and being augmented in the east. We are seeing a new world developing that is totally different from the world that we have had. We are moving from 50 years—rather unusually, by the way—of a monopolar world dominated by a single colossus to a multipolar world in which the role of our foreign policy and our defence will be wholly different. If you want a model of what comes next, do not look at the last 50 years, as it seems to me myopically we do; look rather at the Europe of the 19th century, the famous five-sided concept of Europe, the European Areopagiticus, as Canning and Castlereagh used to call it. Britain’s role there was not fixed; it was always to play to the balance—a period of much more subtle foreign policy. Canning once said that Britain has no fixed allies, but it has fixed interests. It plays the relationships with the rest of the world. The revelation that we see now is that the 400 years of the hegemony of western power, western institutions and western values—I date 400 from the end of the Ottoman Empire—is over. We now have to share power in a multipolar world. I think that the United States will remain the most powerful nation on earth for the next 20 or 30 years, but the context in which she holds her power is wholly different.

Now, if we want to operate in the world, we have to move beyond the Atlantic club; we have to bring in other partners, and we have to bring in the Chinese. To those who say that the Chinese would play no part, I say that of course they would, because they have an interest in this, too. What is the number of Chinese serving under the blue flag and the blue helmet of the UN in the world today? Does anybody know? The figure is 3,700. In Africa, already committed to multilateral defence, what is the largest naval unit that is today fighting Somali pirates? Well, you are ahead of me: it is the Chinese—of course, it is; they want to keep the sea lanes open, just as we did in the days of our mercantile power. We have to begin to develop those relationships. We have to move into a wholly different kind of policy where we will, of course, rely on the Atlantic alliance as our primary alliance, but we will have to build alternatives and new coalitions beyond that. Where we do that is where we will succeed, and where we do not do it is where we will fail.

We have to get out of the kinetic age. We see a problem in the world and our first instinct is to bomb it. Clausewitz said that war is the extension of politics by other means. We remember the war, but we forget the politics. And so, we forgot the politics in Afghanistan. We did not co-operate with the neighbours; we did it all by kinetic power. We forget today the politics in ISIL; we do it all by kinetic power when there is a great, wide coalition to be built—Canning and Castlereagh would have understood—which would have involved Iran and Russia in order to isolate ISIL; and then you can use your military power to greater effect. We will never beat ISIL simply by using more western high explosive to kill more Muslim Arabs; it needs to be much wider than that. At this very moment, we believe that we live in the kinetic age, but we do not: we live in the new age of diplomacy, in which your capacity to build those wider coalitions to achieve the interests of your nation at the time—not necessarily coalitions of values, but coalitions of interest—will really define success or failure in the age to come. Canning and Castlereagh would have understood that very well; our foreign policy seems to ignore it completely.

Some believe that this means that this is the age of the network, so we do not have to worry about Europe as we can build wider networks with the Commonwealth. However, foreign policy depends on who shares your interests, not who shares your systems. It is madness that we should move away from Europe at this stage. Do we not understand how much the terms of trade have changed in Europe in the past 10 years? We no longer have a United States looking east across the Atlantic but one looking west across the Pacific. We do not have a United States any longer with troops in Europe dedicated to the defence of Europe. They are here because it serves their operations elsewhere in the world. We do not have a United States any longer that we can depend on as a defender of last resort and a friend in all circumstances.

On our eastern borders we have an aggressive Russian president who is prepared to use tanks to capture European territory. To our south-east we have an Arab world in flames. To our south we have a Maghreb in chaos right the way down to Mali. All around us are economic powers which are individually more powerful than any of us are individually in Europe. Is this the moment to abandon our solidarity with the rest of Europe? It is madness—it is madness beyond madness—in pursuit of what is called sovereignty, the totally elusive sovereignty of the cork bobbing around behind someone else’s ocean liner. This is not the moment to abandon that.

The third element that is changing is that this is no longer a world made up of nation states: it is a world which is uniquely interdependent in a way it never has been before. You have swine flu in Mexico; it is a problem for Aberdeen in the next hours. You have Lehman Brothers collapsing; the whole world goes down. You have fires in the Russian steppes; there are food riots in Africa. You have the irresponsible burning of fossil fuels in the west, and the drowning of Bangladesh. We are deeply interconnected and it is that interconnection that matters. We have to realise that there are no longer sovereign states. We used to pretend that there were issues which were domestic and others which were foreign policy. There is no domestic issue that does not have a foreign policy quotient to it. It is no longer the case that the nation state acting alone can determine its future.

When I was a young soldier fighting in the jungles of Borneo in the last of the imperial wars, if you were to ask me about the defence of Britain I would have said that it depended on a strong Navy, a strong Army, a strong Air Force and strong allies. Today that no longer applies. Today the Minister of Health is involved in the security of Britain because pandemic diseases are a threat to our security; the Minister of Industry—if we had one—would be involved because the cyber capacity of our enemies is a threat to our security; and the Minister of Home Affairs is involved because what that second-generation Muslim family in that terraced house in Bolton does is a threat to our security. The security of Britain no longer rests with the Ministry of Defence but with our capacity to network across the piece. It is the network—not the vertical high ground and the command structure—which is the paradigm structure of our age, and Whitehall knows that not at all.

Imagine that it is not me speaking today but that the year is 1879 and Lord Roberts of Kandahar is telling you about Afghanistan—not about how he lost but how he won. He would talk about his screw guns and his brilliant generalship. He would not mention drugs or poppies growing in the fields because they were not connected to anything. Afghanistan has always been a centre of the opium trade. Nowadays it is connected to crime in our inner cities. He would not have mentioned the mad mullah in the cave, although he had those too. The mad mullah of the time was called the Wali of Swat, about whom Edward Lear wrote a poem in which he asked who or what is the Wali of Swat; is he short, is he fat, is he squat? He would not ask today who or what was Osama bin Laden because he is connected to that terraced house in Bolton. Everything is connected to everything. He would not talk about collateral damage—he caused a lot of that—because it did not matter. Nowadays that piece of American high explosive falling on that wedding party in Afghanistan inadvertently matters very much and it is round the world a nanosecond later. Everything is connected to everything. It is no longer our vertical ability that matters but our ability to network. The most important thing about our nations and our organisations are the interconnectors, the docking points, that help us to build the wider coalitions that produce effective actions, rather than pretending stupidly sometimes that we can act alone or only with our friends.

One final thought. Now that we are interconnected and the enemy is now inside the gates and not only outside, something else has changed. For the past thousands of years—I suppose since history began—defence has depended on collective defence; it is been our capacity to stand together that matters. If you are interconnected, you share a destiny with your enemy. It was the realisation of that that enabled me as a young diplomat in Geneva in the 1970s to participate in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with the Soviet Union. We understood that we shared a destiny and that using the weapons that we possessed would destroy not only ourselves but the others. It was an understanding of that shared destiny that brought peace, at last, to Northern Ireland. It is a failure to understand that shared destiny between Israel and its Arab neighbours which is the biggest impediment to peace in the Middle East today.

So it is that, in the modern interconnected age, it is not only collective defence that matters but an understanding of common security as well. This has been the common proposition of saints, heroes, visionaries and poets, but now it moves from a moral proposition to a necessity to shape and frame our policies for the future. The great John Donne’s poem states:

“Each man’s death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore send not to knowFor whom the bell tolls,It tolls for thee.”

For him, it was a proposition of morality; for us it is part of the equation for our success, perhaps even our survival.

Christian With Detailed Plans To Massacre Muslim Children Not A "True Threat," Released By Judge

Christian With Detailed Plans To Massacre Muslim Children Not A “True Threat,” Released By Judge

In the wake of the FBI’s outrageous reluctance to label the Charleston massacre a terrorist act, this really shouldn’t surprise me at all. But what does a violent right-wing monster have to do to be considered an actual terrorist these days? Earlier this year, Robert Rankin Doggart was arrested for planning to slaughter Muslims in upstate New York. Doggart pled guilty and was released this week…

View On WordPress

ISIL affiliate in Sinai claims rocket attack on Israel

The armed group says it fired three rockets into southern Israel in a rare attack from Egyptian soil.

July 3 2015

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group’s affiliate in Egypt has claimed responsibility for a rocket attack from the Sinai Peninsula into southern Israel on Friday.

“Three Grad rockets were fired at Jewish positions in occupied Palestine,” the “Sinai Province” group said in a statement on Twitter.

An Israeli military spokesman said earlier that two rockets fired from Egypt’s violence-plagued Sinai Peninsula exploded inside Israeli territory on Friday without causing casualties.

“Two rockets fired from Sinai struck southern Israel, but without causing casualties or material damage,” the spokesman said, without elaborating.

Egypt is reeling from a string of deadly attacks by the ISIL on the security forces in the Sinai Peninsula. The ISIL and other groups reported to have killed scores of troops there in the recent days.

On Wednesday, Egypt’s military deployed F-16 warplanes to bombard ISIL fighters who battled troops in a North Sinai town after launching a surprise dawn attack on army checkpoints.

Dozens were killed in what was ISIL’s boldest attack yet in the Sinai, with fighters taking over rooftops and firing rockets at troops.

Incidents along the Israel-Egypt border are rare.

At the end of last year two Israeli soldiers were wounded by gunshots and an anti-tank missile fired at their car from the Sinai.

The most serious incident was in August 2011, when gunmen infiltrated southern Israel and staged a series of ambushes that killed eight Israelis.

Israel has a 240-kilometre border with the Sinai, which is mainly populated by Bedouins who maintain difficult relations with the central government.

Islamic State? This death cult is not a state and it's certainly not Islamic
We must settle on a name for our enemies that doesn’t smear all Muslims but does reflect reality

If we are going to defeat our enemies we have to know who they are. We have to know what to call them. We must at least settle on a name – a terminology – with which we can all agree. And the trouble with the fight against Islamic terror is that we are increasingly grappling with language, and with what it is permissible or sensible to say.

When a man sprays bullets at innocent tourists on a beach, or when aman decapitates his boss and sticks his head on the railings, or when a man blows himself up in a mosque in Kuwait – and when all three atrocities are instantly “claimed” by the same disgusting organisation – it is surely obvious that we are dealing with the same specific form of evil. This is terrorism.

But what are the objectives of this terrorism? Is it religious? Is it political? Is it a toxic mixture of the two? And what exactly is its relationship with Islam? Many thoughtful Muslims are now attempting – understandably – to decouple their religion from any association with violence of this kind.

The excellent Rehman Chishti, MP for Gillingham, has launched a campaign to change the way we all talk about “Isil”. He points out that the very use of the term “Islamic State” is in itself a capitulation to these sadistic and loathsome murderers. They are not running a state, and their gangster organisation is not Islamic – it is a narcissistic death cult.

Rehman’s point is that if you call it Islamic State you are playing their game; you are dignifying their criminal and barbaric behaviour; you are giving them a propaganda boost that they don’t deserve, especially in the eyes of some impressionable young Muslims. He wants us all to drop the terms, in favour of more derogatory names such as “Daesh” or “Faesh”, and his point deserves a wider hearing.

But then there are others who would go much further, and strip out any reference to the words “Muslim” or “Islam” in the discussion of this kind of terrorism – and here I am afraid I disagree. I can well understand why so many Muslims feel this way. Whatever we may think of the “truth” of any religion, there are billions of people for whom faith is a wonderful thing: a consolation, an inspiration – part of their identity

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims for whom the word “Islamic” is a term of the highest praise. They resent the constant association of “Islam” with “terrorism”, as though the one was always fated to give birth to the other. They dislike even the concept of “Islamic extremism”, since it seems to imply a seamless continuum of Muslim belief and behaviour: from liberal to tolerant to conservative to reactionary to terrorist.

Their point is that terrorist violence is alien from Islam, and that is why they argue so strenuously that we should drop all references to “Muslim terrorists” or “Islamic terrorists”. They say that any use of the word Islam or Muslim in such a context is actually offensive and derogatory, and helps to alienate the very people we need to win over.

As one Muslim friend put it to me, “you wouldn’t talk about Christian terrorists would you?” And there is some truth in that. We don’t talk about “Christian terrorism” even in the context of the sectarian violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Why do we seem to taint a whole religion by association with a violent minority?

Well, I am afraid there are two broad reasons why some such association is inevitable. The first is a simple point of language, and the need to use terms that everyone can readily grasp. It is very difficult to bleach out all reference to Islam or Muslim from discussion of this kind of terror, because we have to pinpoint what we are actually talking about. It turns out that there is virtually no word to describe an Islamically-inspired terrorist that is not in some way prejudicial, at least to Muslim ears.

You can’t say “salafist”, because there are many law-abiding and peaceful salafists. You can’t say jihadi, because jihad – the idea of struggle – is a central concept of Islam, and doesn’t necessarily involve violence; indeed, you can be engaged in a jihad against your own moral weakness. The only word that seems to carry general support among Muslim leaders is Kharijite – which means a heretic – and which is not, to put it mildly, a word in general use among the British public.

We can’t just call it “terrorism”, as some have suggested, because we need to distinguish it from any other type of terrorism – whether animal rights terrorists or Sendero Luminoso Marxists. We need to speak plainly, to call a spade a spade. We can’t censor the use of “Muslim” or “Islamic”.

That just lets too many people off the hook. If we deny any connection between terrorism and religion, then we are saying there is no problem in any of the mosques; that there is nothing in the religious texts that is capable of being twisted or misunderstood; that there are no religious leaders whipping up hatred of the west, no perverting of religious belief for political ends.

If we purge our vocabulary of any reference to the specifically religious associations of the problem, then we are not only ignoring the claims of the terrorists themselves (which might be reasonable), but the giant fact that there is a struggle going on now for the future of Islam, and how it can adapt to the 21st century. The terrorism we are seeing across the Muslim world is partly a function of that struggle, and of the chronic failure of much Islamic thinking to distinguish between politics and religion.

The struggle is really about power, of course, rather than spirituality – but that does not mean we can ignore the potency of the religious dimension. It doesn’t much matter which word we agree on, with Muslim communities, to describe this ideology of terror – Islamism? Islamo-fascism? – but we need to settle on it fast, and then join together to stamp out the phenomenon. If we are going to beat them, we must all at least know their name.

A child was forced to lay with her dead counterparts and play dead. A five year old little girl had to lay with her lifeless, blood covered family and stop herself from breathing, blinking, moving to keep herself from getting shot. 10 people were shot, 9 were shot to death. People lost their family. Their friends. But this scum gets an excuse? He gets defense for his deplorable actions? He planned this for MONTHS. He shot down a church and said it was racially motivated. He said, “you rape our women. You’re taking over our country. You have to go.” His head was clear. This is not an insanity plea. He was not losing his mind. He planned it for a long time and voiced his opinions. He supported segregation. He openly hated black people. He is a raging racist. This was not caused by some pills. Pills do not make people racist. Pills don’t make people shoot multiple people in a church. Pills do not make you support segregation. Racism isn’t caused by anything but yourself. Get this shit out of my face. This is perpetuating racism. This is white privilege. This is nothing but wrong. Hundreds of black kids are gunned down for nothing but sagging their pants, and he gets off Scott free because it could be these stupid pills? PILLS?! PILLS DO NOT SHOOT INNOCENT PEOPLE. THIS RAGING RACIST DID. “Don’t blame the gun he picked up.” Yeah fucking blame him.


Terrorism lies in the eyes of the beholder…

1. Mass Murderer Terrorist Dylann Roof kills nine unarmed Black worshippers because he can.
2. Civilian Terrorist George Zimmerman, slayer of unarmed Trayvon Martin.
3. Police Terrorist Darren Wilson, murderer of unarmed Michael Brown…
4. North Charleston Police Terrorist Michael Slager who gunned down unarmed Walter Scott.
5. Police Terrorist Matthew Kenny who slaughtered unarmed Tony Robinson Jr.
6. Civilian Terrorist Craig Stephen Hicks, shot three unarmed Muslim students in the head at Chapel Hill.
7. Police Terrorist Dante Servin  murdered unarmed Reika Boyd because it pleased him to do so…
8. Police Terrorist Sargent Mourad Mourad and fellow Terrorist Officer Jovaniel Cordova took the life of sixteen year old Kimani Gray because they knew that their wouldn’t be any repercussions or consequences…
09. NYPD Terrorist Officer Daniel Pantaleo who applied a homicidal chokehold on unarmed Eric Garner, because he could…