According to Human Rights Watch, there has been a 30% drop in aid trucks reaching Gaza. Ali Moustafa / GETTY



“Many of us like to ask ourselves, ‘What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?’

“The answer is, you’re doing it. Right now.”
-- Aaron Bushnell

“… his action is having its intended effect: drawing attention to the horrors that are happening in Gaza.

I know this is true because everywhere I see Aaron Bushnell being discussed online I see a massive deluge of pro-Israel trolls frantically swarming the comments in a mad rush to manipulate the narrative.

They all understand how destructive it is to US and Israeli information interests for people to be seeing an international news story about a member of the US Air Force self-immolating on camera while screaming “Free Palestine”, and they are doing everything they can to mitigate that damage.”

--Caitlin Johnstone

Much more, Tragically:


RIP Flaco.
Good luck Dr. Bruggeman.
A gun murder in the Light Rail Station I use all the time is fucked up. What is mean by "in the tunnel"? On the station platform, or literally in the tunnel past the barriers?
Auntie Grizelda, that was sarcasm last week. I am not an anti-choice conservative, FFS.


@1, "This is not the first self-immolation tied to the Israel-Hamas war," wrote The Stranger.

That is evidence that war is demonizing brutal violence that destroys combatants and non-combatants without grace, mercy, or humanity.

It speaks to ending the war, but not on what terms. It contributes nothing to that issue.


@2, Would it be less fucked up if it were a fist murder, knife murder, blunt object murder, or thrown in front of train murder? Once its a murder, the means is not relevant. A murder is a murder. Humans committed them quite well, and at similar rates as a species, before firearms, and will do so with whatever lethal technology we develop next.

Lethal objects don't murder of their own volition. At least not yet. We will see what AI brings.


The Supreme Court is right to take up the Florida and Texas cases.

I don't like the whiny reasons Texas and Florida passed their laws, or generally like what the electorates of either state see as good laws.

In this case they are correct. The public square is now a virtual one, not a physical one.

The Supreme Court recognized in 1946 in Marsh vs. Alabama that when a private actor creates the public square by providing the forum in the manner that government does, the 1st Amendment applies.

They have since upheld and expanded the doctrine with shopping centers and other quasi-public space.

Now that the public square has been created by the private sector, virtually, the 1st Amendment needs to apply there as well.


Marsh v. Alabama


Just a reminder: For a ceasefire to be effective, both parties must genuinely agree to it. It's not simply a magic word Biden can use to halt the war. While I understand Reagan managed it, today's circumstances are vastly different. Those who comfortably call for a ceasefire from their cozy homes may continue to do so, but blaming Biden for a genocide is irresponsible, lazy, and dangerous


@1: Yeah, it’s really annoying to have your effort to exploit the tragedy of someone else’s personal mental-heath crisis interrupted by other persons trying to exploit that exact same person’s tragic mental-health crisis.

There’s no squatter’s rights here, folks; Caitlin Johnstone OWNS Aaron Bushnell’s tragic mental-health crisis, in toto, in perpetuity — and don’t you forget it!!1!


@4: always coming to the rescue of the poor persecuted firearms. really important points.

wouldn't be worse, but it would be more unlikely.


speqking of the
War on Palestinians

from Democracy Now:

Israeli Freelancer’s Anti-
Palestinian Social Media History

The New York Times has reportedly launched an internal investigation of a freelance Israeli reporter after she liked multiple posts on social media advocating for violence against Palestinians, including one that called for turning Gaza into a slaughterhouse.

In December, the reporter, Anat Schwartz, co-authored a widely criticized article for The New York Times alleging that members of Hamas committed widespread sexual violence on October 7.

The Intercept recently reported that doubts over the accuracy of the article led the Times to shelving an episode about the issue on its podcast, “The Daily.”


your Narrative?

@9 right
on Cue!

well Done


Cafe zoning: It’s a good idea, but the state shouldn’t be mandating it. The Legislature has enough on its plate without trying to force local zoning codes.


@11: Schwartz was one of four co-authors of the story, and not the first author listed. Has the New York Times retracted the story?


@1 Thank you.

You beat me to the sentiment (say his name, Aaron Bushnell) AND the exact same Cait Oz post.

No votes for Genocide Joe...


@10, Your statement and the stat presumes facts not in evidence.

Homicide rates would be lower if homicide had to be done with other means.

Before firearms, they were done at similar rates, with other weapons.

Changing weapons is like re-arranging or putting different types of lawn chairs on the Titanic. It doesn't change the causative factor, which was human agency that drove them into an iceberg.

Murder by method or type of weapon can shift all you want, but the bottom line number of total murders doesn't change.


@10, BTW, if it makes you feel better, the murder didn't happen at the University Street station.

A human, exercising agency, chose to get on light rail, and use a weapon to murder someone. The weapon is no more causative than the train, even though you can accurately say there is a 100% statistical correlation between being on a train, and being murdered underground between Pioneer Square and University Street.


@4 Guns have significantly higher chances of injuring bystanders than other common murder weapons. You rarely hear of someone a dozen yards away getting hit by a stray knife. Assault by firearm is also far more likely to result in death than other means.


The fact that all of these oh-so-very-concerned commenters are dutifully repeating the copypasta that rhymes with "Benocide Beau" should be ample demonstration of how effectively the meme-distribution organs have been commandeered for the purpose of political propagandization and to what ends.


@18, Even less than when vehicles or gasoline are used in homicides. Those get the largest number of unintended victims.

18,450 total U.S. murders in 2023. Of those only 597 were murdered in mass shootings. Of those, the vast majority killed were intentionally targeted by the shooter. So its probably safe to say that the occurrences of a bystander not targeted by the murderer being killed can be counted using all of one's fingers and toes.

If the person is acting in self-defense, and they kill a bystander, that is not criminally culpable.

That is a local documented case, where bystanders were hit. Seven hit, one killed by someone acquitted because they were acting in self-defense (pretty damn recklessly IMO). We can probably find other documented cases of bystanders being murdered by both unlawful and lawful shooters, but its not something that is separately tracked by the FBI, any criminologist, or group I could find (which indicates how small the problem is).

See also RCW 9a.16.030. See common law doctrine of "transferred intent" for California and other states that rely on precedent instead of having their legislatures spell out self-defense actors aren't criminally culpable for bystander deaths.

"Fun" fact. Assuming all (it's actually only 63.2% of them) 597 of the mass killing were done with a long-gun (shotgun and rifles - rifles includes so called "assault rifles") its still less than with hands, feet, and fists. 564 vs. 600. It's less than with knives 564 vs. 1,476. It's less than "other weapons not stated." 564 vs. 1,727. See FBI, Uniform Crime Statistics, Expanded Homicide Data Table 8, 2015 - 2019, 2019.

The more mundane (not for the victim) "one at a time" murders are where the stats come from. 17,000 plus murders, one at a time.

The FBI says only 9.7% of murders are done by a stranger to the victim. What percentage of those were a bystander to the intended target? A handful. What percentage of those were by the defensive actor (not criminally culpable) who hit a bystander? Even less.

The national news going wall-to-wall coverage with most, if not all, mass murders, badly skews our understanding of murder.

Our greatest risk of murder, by a factor of over 16,000, is being a singular murder victim, at the hands of someone we know.

If someone we know has a murderous level of personal animosity toward us, what weapon, or lack of a weapon, they have access to, isn't going to stop the act.


A murder of a teen, by one of three teens in the bathroom when the murder occurred, in the West Seattle Community Center, will likely never be solved thanks to a new state law.


I wonder if there would be fewer of these crazy attacks on the light rail if we had actual mandatory fare enforcement? I suspect that if everyone on the train (or the buses for that matter) was there because they actually had somewhere they needed to go, rather than just wanting a place to hang out, things might be different.


@22 Never fear, Poor Reading Comprehension Man is here!

You will note that in @18 I talked about people getting injured by stray bullets. Magically that became killed in your fevered imagination. Next time, try reading what I wrote instead of what you imagined I wrote. Not to mention that murders somehow morphed into mass killings, and anyone actually targeted by the killer was ignored. As if a mass knifer would be equally effective as a mass shooter. I mean, that dude in Vegas could probably have killed 58 people from his hotel room using throwing knives. And who said anything about criminal culpability in self-defense? I'm surprised you didn't throw mens rea is to get the Gish Gallop trifecta.

Oh, and by the way, your numbers on stray bullets are way off. Not surprising that you're badly wrong (again). FWIW, 317 people were hit by stray bullets, of whom 65 were killed in a 12-month stretch of 2008-2009. Total number of murders in 2008/2009 were fairly similar to 2023, so the stray bullet injury/death rates should be similar.

Hey, wait a minute. Maybe you just have 65 fingers and toes! Were you AI-generated? That would explain so much!


@25, Thanks for digging up an actual number. 0.35% of total murders were from stray bullets. So by all means lets focus on that minuscule of the problem. A 10% reduction in that part of the problem is 6.5 less excess deaths in the United States. Whereas a 10% reduction from focusing on the whole issue of reducing murders yields a 1,845 reduction in excess deaths. I think I know where I want my tax dollars focused to do the most good.

Then you bring up Vegas. Those weren't stray bullets. They were bullets aimed at the crowd. No bystanders were hit. Everyone hit was an intended target. The killer likely wishes he had hit and killed more to draw even more attention to himself, his unhappiness with his own life, and grievances with the world.

"A stray bullet is a bullet that, after being fired from a gun, hits an unintended target. Such a shooting accident may occur due to missing a target when hunting or sport-shooting or celebrating weddings, as a result of accidental/negligent discharges, or during crossfire or celebratory gunfire." -

Even with that the odds of dying by being hit by a car in Vegas, or shot or stabbed by a single shooter targeting you for your money are higher by many magnitudes of order than being splattered with a stolen bus or by bullets being swept across the crowd. Yet your focus is on the latter, not the former.

Yet your focus, driven by the visceral centers of your brain, not the analytical parts of it, gets you focused on mitigating the lowest risk to your safety, with finite law making capacity and funding resources. That's normal human psychology; however, we need not be captured by it. It certainly drives public policy and law making too often.

We are visceral beings, but we need not be captivated by that aspect of our nature. We can choose to elevate the analytical and intellectual to say no to the visceral.


I have a feeling that a
ahab doesn’t have a job or anything better to do with their time than troll the stranger


@27, What's your excuse for posting here?


Well, I am very sure that the families of the Vegas victims are deeply comforted to know that their loved one was shot anonymously from a distance by someone who really really meant to kill them.

My point in bringing up Vegas was about your mania with the idea that a murderer who doesn't have a gun will use some other means to the same end. I was saying that the perpetrator in Vegas would not have been able to kill 58 people from a substantial distance if he didn't have access to guns. A knife just isn't going to do it at that range.

Oh, and it turns out that most people are not human computers constantly assessing the probabilities of various risks to their health and safety. It turns out that even though murder in general is relatively rare, it does bring out an emotional response when you have a personal connection to the place or victim. Maybe you haven't wondered if you know the student who was just shot at your kids' school. It kinda changes your perspective.

Sure, it's a visceral response. But considering that gun violence is the leading cause of death for children under 18, maybe it's one we can address. Not to mention that it and poisoning are the only causes of death for children on a significant upward trend. So maybe by addressing gun violence like we did motor vehicle collisions, we could do something to save some kids' lives. No doubt that's just bad economics in your view, but hey, I'd expect nothing less from Captain Ahab.


As long as the issue is addressing violence that kills children at higher rates, I'm all for it.

Bystanders being shot (stray bullets being those that did not strike the intended target, which was your originally posted concern) is just too small to focus on.

There were many other means in Vegas that have been used elsewhere by grievance killers. The nature of a grievance killer is to draw attention to themselves by achieving a high body count, by whatever means necessary.

I also didn't have any objections to the Trump Administration (which I otherwise hated) to banning bump stocks. Bump stocks don't add any efficacy to self-defense with a semi-automatic rifle. Banning them did not infringe on the right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or target shooting.

Yes we are involuntarily visceral. Just because we feel a certain way, even involuntarily, doesn't mean our decisions must, or should be, dictated by those visceral impressions. We can choose contrary to those visceral feelings and reactions based on what the prefrontal cortex analytically comes up with, even it what it comes up with doesn't change how we involuntarily feel about it.


@20: Is that a compliment or disparagement?


If only the proponents of rent control would self-immolate. That'll show the legislature!


@9, @13: Following up on your unquestioning copypasta of Democracy Now's uncritical repetition of the completely anonymous rumor the Intercept passed along from alleged sources at the New York Times, the Intercept does not question whether many Israeli women suffered sexual violence on 10/7. Rather, the Intercept seethes at implications that left-wing news outlets, writers, and advocacy groups intentionally ignored credible reports of many Israeli women suffering sexual violence on 10/7. From where could possibly have come the idea that left-wing news outlets, writers, and advocacy groups intentionally ignored credible reports of many Israeli women suffering sexual violence?

"How is anyone still talking about October 7? What Israel has done since October 7 is many times worse than what happened on that day by any conceivable metric..."

Given the total lack of reports of repeated sexual violence by the IDF across Gaza, it seems there is indeed a very "conceivable metric," by which what Israel has done since October 7 is NOT (m)any times worse than what happened to Israeli women on that day.

"Israel responded to the Hamas attack by doing something much, much worse than anything Hamas has ever done,"

Again, reports of sexual violence against Israeli women were very well known by the time this quoted material was written. There's really no way to read this without the implication the author simply does not care about sexual violence against Israeli women. Which misogynist wrote this?

"--by Caitlin Johnstone; 1/9/24"

And who dumped this misogynistic garbage onto Slog?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? BUELLER?!?


So sorrry Wormtongue
for your crumbling

The U.N.’s
top rights official
condemns the ‘brutality’
of Israel’s offensive in Gaza.

The terror attacks by Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups on Oct. 7 were “appalling and entirely wrong,” said Volker Türk, the U.N.’s high commissioner for human rights. But, he added, “so is the brutality of the Israeli response.”

He laid out the toll of its military campaign: what the United Nations estimates is 100,000 dead, injured or missing Palestinians, amounting to one in 20 of Gaza’s people; the unprecedented number of deaths of U.N. employees and journalists; some 17,000 Palestinian children orphaned or separated from their families.

“There appear to be no bounds to, no words to capture, the horrors that are unfolding before our eyes in Gaza,” he said in an address to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. “This is carnage.”

war crimes?
mass murder?
fucking Genocide?

it's all okay,
right wormtongue?

it's all about
and NOT

not if it's

fuck off

go Back
to Mordor.

where they Miss you.


@34: Um, you did notice your quoted source didn’t use the word “genocide,” right? You added that yourself. Care to ask why your source didn’t use the word?

You won’t ever give a definition of the word “genocide,” except to say it’s not the actual definition used by the ICJ, the one from the Genocide Convention. Why not? Because you want to apply “genocide” to Israel’s actions in Gaza, but NOT to Hamas’ actions in Israel. So you keep writing on the wrong side of Orwell, insisting the word means whatever you want it to mean — and magically does not mean anything and everything you don’t want it to mean.

But it doesn’t work, not merely because I keep calling you on it, but because words mean things, and no amount of you abusing a word will change that.

And my “crumbling narrative”? I’m not the one enthusiastically, approvingly, and repeatedly quoting a rape-denying apologist for genocide*.


In case you some-
How forgot it


oh wormmy
your tediousness
never seems to end.

from the U.N.:

International Court of Justice (ICJ) offers the first concrete hope to protect civilians in Gaza enduring apocalyptic humanitarian conditions, destruction, mass killing, wounding and irreparable trauma, UN experts* said today.

“The ruling is a significant milestone in the decades-long struggle for justice by the Palestinian people,” the experts said.

The ICJ found it plausible that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide and issued six provisional measures, ordering Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocidal acts, including preventing and punishing incitement to genocide, ensuring aid and services reach Palestinians under siege in Gaza, and preserving evidence of crimes committed in Gaza.

“We echo the sense of urgency demonstrated by the Court in its short, two-week deliberation, as hundreds of Palestinians, primarily women and children, are being killed by Israeli forces every day, resulting in a death toll of 26,751 people in Gaza over the past three months. This amounts to over 1% of the population.

“The court order is urgently needed to protect the very existence of the Palestinian people from potentially genocidal actions the Court has ordered Israel to halt and prevent,” the experts said.

“Given the dire situation on the ground and the careful wording of the Court, we believe that the most effective way to implement the provisional measures is through an immediate ceasefire.”

and now
BiBi's Starving
Them to Death*
and then having
his IDF shoot them
as they try to provide
something for their Families

*long as it ain't
Genicide all's "fair"?
wormtongue Wrong again


humanitarian conditions,
destruction, mass killing, wounding and irreparable trauma'

Gawd it
ain't Genocide!

right, wormmy?


‘This Is for Gaza’
George Galloway, Leftist
Firebrand, Wins U.K. Seat

As the Mideast conflict reverberates through British politics, the populist politician with a history of inflammatory statements about Israel won a special election in northern England.

As he celebrated victory early Friday after winning a parliamentary election, George Galloway, a veteran left-wing firebrand, directed his attack squarely at the leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party.

“Keir Starmer, this is for Gaza,” Mr. Galloway said, wearing the fedora hat that has become his trademark. “You have paid, and you will pay, a high price for the role you have played in enabling, encouraging and covering for the catastrophe presently going on.”

Mr. Galloway won the election — for a seat in Rochdale, north of Manchester, that had previously been held by Labour — after a chaotic campaign that became emblematic of the anger that has swept through British politics over the war in Gaza.
--by Stephen Castle

more, encouragingly:

“You have paid, and you will pay, a high price for the role you have played in enabling, encouraging and covering for the catastrophe presently going on.”

all you Enablers?
there's a Special
Place in Hell for
Y'all's enabling
asses. Excel-


@36: That's old news, and worse, you somehow forgot to note the ICJ refused South Africa's request for an immediate ceasefire order. (Amazing how proponents of ceasefire can't ever seem to notice that...) If they thought genocide* was happening, why didn't they order a cease-fire?

So, are you ever going to recognize that Hamas committed genocide* in Israel on 10/7? Or are you going to continue your pathetically futile efforts to redefine "genocide" so it applies only to Israel, and not Hamas?


The original, the best, the only!
Accept no substitutions
Of any kind


so Hamas
One day
of Terrorism

justifying Nutnyahoo's

on What Planet
does this makes
any Sense? Uranus?



@40: Ooh — so close! Yes, Hamas committed terrorism on 10/7. But Hamas committed that terrorism in the service of genocide:

“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
“(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;”


We know Hamas attacked “with intent to destroy” either or both of the national group (Israelis) or a religious group (Jews). We also know Hamas intentionally committed multiple acts satisfying each of the three sub-clauses quoted above.

Therefore, Israel’s pursuit of Hamas into Gaza was (and is) to stop the genocide Hamas committed on 10/7. As Hamas has pledged to continue attacking within Israel in exactly the same way, and since Israel has the obligation to prevent genocide, the attacks will continue until Hamas can no longer commit genocide.

So, what can we in the international community do to prevent Hamas from continuing genocide?

That’s the question we should be asking.

(If we want to stop genocide.)



'Israel's Genocide'll
continue till the Last
Gazan because Hamas
did too October Seventh.'

Justifies un-
speakable Terrorism
on Palestinians forever?

on Uranus
is this Accecptable

the World
is just

you and BiBi
bending back
the Moral Arc
of the Universe

one slughtered
Gazan Child
at a time.


@42: Yes, you must simply make up words, and intentionally misattribute them to your interlocutors. Because if you try to argue honestly you will lose, and lose badly, and you know it. Thank you for this implied compliment.

Hamas will gladly continue genocide in Israel if it can. You keep pretending this isn't the case, as if there is some natural law which absolutely prevents Hamas from ever attacking Israel again. In reality, the IDF's attacks on Hamas currently prevent Hamas from further genocide in Israel. A ceasefire will simply enable Hamas to prepare for more genocide in Israel. All of this has been known for months, yet you constantly deny it all.

Hamas intended to commit murder, rape, and mutilation in Israel, all in the service of genocide. By contrast, civilians in Gaza die because Hamas uses them for human shields against the IDF. Yet you constantly deny Hamas' agency and responsibility for the deaths of civilians in Gaza, and, via abuse of the word, "genocide," you have repeatedly and falsely claimed Israel wants to murder civilians in Gaza.

When you quote a rape-denier, try yourself to deny rape happened, and make false equivalences between the raping Hamas and the non-raping IDF, you lose all ability to lecture anyone else on morality. Perhaps someday you will understand all this.


what was it
you were saying?


The word ‘genocide’ is bandied about rather carelessly in the context of the Gaza war. However, the word ‘genocide’ has a definition “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.” Is Israel trying to destroy the Palestinians? Of course, not. What ‘genocide’ really means (these days) is “something I don’t like”. Given that the population of Gaza and the W. bank have risen massively in recent decades, Israel is entirely innocent (of genocide). Of course, Hamas would carry out a real genocide if they could.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.