Still, no long-term effects on humans yet. For now 5G is safe.

I recommend everyone watch the documentary about him here (there are several languages available)

> The court said Abdallah, who was detained in 1984 and convicted in 1987 over the 1982 murders, would be released on December 6 on condition that he leaves France, French anti-terror prosecutors said in a statement, adding that they would appeal the release order. > > "In (a) decision dated today, the court granted Georges Ibrahim Abdallah conditional release from December 6, subject to the condition that he leaves French territory and not appear there again," the prosecutors said.

Couldn't find any good sources in English, but thought it might be interesting to let y'all know.

https://archive.ph/fnPyy

Gonna do my Yogthos impression and bring some banger of some news

クロスポスト: https://lemmy.ml/post/22427551

Tankies were right after all, yet again.

> > South Korean intelligence officials have adopted a skeptical stance when it comes to reports from Ukraine. It’s gotten to the point where Korean intelligence officials are telling reporters to hold off on relaying reports about North Korean troops from Ukrainian officials until they receive third-party confirmation, because Ukraine makes “fake news” at the state level. This means we have to carefully consider the source of the information and the intentions behind it. > > Archive link

source https://mipforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/MIPF-Conference-Paper-FINAL-WEB.pdf

Ignore the lib, pro-NATO, anti-Russia source.

Love irony quotes in the title.

Burn in hell "brave" Briton, should've stayed in Cornwall.

>U.S. [neo]imperialist hegemony is reliant on an intricate global network of military bases, which are jumping-off points for [neo]imperialist wars and occupations, and as logistics hubs for the entire U.S. military supply chain. Their geographic spread allows for rapid deployments worldwide. This base system continues to expand, as evidenced by the current encirclement of China. > >A vital base for U.S. geostrategy is Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos archipelago. Located in the middle of the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia has housed > >B-1 and B-2 bombers and B-52 Stratofortress bombers, which were used in Iraq and Afghanistan during the U.S. wars of aggression. The island was an early testing ground for drone technology. > >On world maps the Chagos Islands are named, “British Indian Ocean Territory” (BIOT), giving no indication that Diego Garcia is a U.S. base. The French first colonized the islands governing them as part of Mauritius in the 18th century, bringing enslaved Africans to the Chagos Islands before ceding them to the British in 1814 > >Shortly before Mauritian independence in 1968, the British split Chagos from Mauritius to maintain its control over the archipelago under the newly created BIOT. (Al Jazeera, Oct. 3)

>Israel refuses to comply with international law and U.N. resolutions. We recall here the New York Protocol issued by U.N. Security Council member states on September 25, calling for the implementation of Resolution 1701, a ceasefire, and Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, as well as the Security Council’s Resolution 2735, calling for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. > >In its aggression, Israel commits serious crimes that violate international law, including: >* Crimes of aggression and crimes against peace as defined by art. 6c of the charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg Charter) and U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3314 , and article 8 bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) constituting a violation of the U.N. Charter and a threat to international peace and security. >* Violations of Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). >* War crimes as described in Article 85 of Protocol I and Article 8 of the Rome Statute, as well as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions as outlined in Article 85, paragraph 5, and customary rule 156. >* Acts of terrorism, as Israel’s targeting of civilians aims to spread fear, in violation of all international conventions on combating terrorism. >* Genocide under art. 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and Article 6 of the Rome Statute of the ICC. >* Crimes against humanity under art. 6c of the charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg Charter) and Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the ICC, not only against the Lebanese and Palestinian people but against all humanity. > >The Lebanese Democratic Lawyers strongly condemn Israel’s crimes and urgently call on the world – governments, international organizations, and human rights bodies – to: >1. Condemn Israel, impose sanctions, boycott it, sever diplomatic relations, and pressure it to stop its aggression and massacres against civilians in line with the Resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly at its 10th Emergency Special Session on September 13, 2024, and the Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian territories. >2. Work towards expelling Israel from the U.N. and all international and regional organizations, including UNESCO and UNICEF. >3. Cooperating with South Africa, Venezuela, and other countries pursuing legal action against Israel and its officials before the relevant international courts by providing legal assistance and essential documents regarding the crimes committed against Lebanon and its civilian population. >4. Form delegations of lawyers to meet with the judiciary in each country, including bar associations, judges, and law professors, to demand legal condemnation of Israel and legal support for the Lebanese and Palestinian and Syrian people. >5. The Lebanese Democratic Lawyers affirm the right of peoples to self-determination and support the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation, racism, and colonialism. They salute the heroic resistance fighters and honor the martyrs who have fallen as a result of Israeli aggression on Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, with a special tribute to the martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

The only honest reporting coming from the West is made by two kids with a camera. That's the state of MSM media today.

This is hugely important and no-one is paying attention.

Philippines President Marcos Jr. just signed 2 new bills (the "Maritime Zones Act" and the "Philippine Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act"), backed by the U.S. State Department (via a press release by the infamous Matthew Miller: https://www.state.gov/on-the-philippines-maritime-zones-act/), that claim to implement "international law" but actually are a direct violation of international law in that they attempt to legitimize expansionist claims at the expense of virtually all its neighbors.

Let me explain

First, some context.

The Philippines exist as an independent country since 1946 when they gained their independence from the United States. They had never existed as a country before.

The establishment of the Philippines was officialized by the Treaty of Manilla.

Crucially, the Treaty of Manilla also defined Filipino territory as based on the earlier Treaty of Paris, when Spain ceded the Philippines to the US at the end of the Spanish-American War of 1898.

You can see these boundaries as defined in the treaty of Paris illustrated here ! As you can clearly see, these boundaries exclude all the contentious spots that are in dispute today: it excludes the Spratly Islands in their entirety (where the famous Second Thomas Shoal is located) and it excludes the Scarborough Shoal which is right outside the border.

So since when have the Philippines started to claim these features as part of its territory?

It basically started in 1972 when the Philippines government invented a new municipality called "Kalayaan" (which means "freedom") that comprises a very large portion of the Spratlys.

This new expansionism wasn't welcome in the region given that China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia all claim the Spratly islands either as a whole or in part...

Crucially, at the time, the US and the West in general did NOT recognize the legitimacy of the Philippines' claim over "Kalayaan", treating the Spratly islands as a disputed area (which it is).

For proof, see this fascinating memo from NSA Brent Scowcroft to President Ford, where the US explicitly states that "as disputed areas, the Spratlys and the Reed Bank can be defined as territory to which the [mutual defense] treaty would not apply."

https://xcancel.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1804052947690754255

Or see this recent 2020 "note verbale" to the UN by Britain, France and Germany in which they write they “take no position” over the “disputed territorial sovereignty to naturally formed land features [...] in the South China Sea” (https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mys_12_12_2019/2020_09_16_DEU_NV_UN_001.pdf)

Long context, sorry, but this is important, because these 2 new bills signed by Marcos Jr. completely change this status quo.

Let's look at what these new bills actually do, because it's quite clever - and extremely concerning.

The Maritime Zones Act (legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata…) does something unprecedented: it declares that "The high-tide features covered by the Kalayaan Island Group in the West Philippine Sea shall have a territorial sea of twelve (12) nautical miles."

This might sound technical, but it's actually a major legal maneuver, because under UNCLOS (the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea), only sovereign territory can generate territorial seas (https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm)

So by declaring territorial seas around these features, the Philippines is essentially claiming sovereignty through the back door.

And here's where it gets really interesting: UNCLOS explicitly does NOT deal with sovereignty disputes.

The famous 2016 UNCLOS arbitration tribunal specifically states this (https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/479-introduction-to-international-comparative-law-fall-2016/resources/14.1-in-the-matter-of-the-south-china-sea-arbitration-philippines-v-china-excerpts/):

"This Tribunal has not been asked to, and does not purport to, make any ruling as to which State enjoys sovereignty over any land territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands or Scarborough Shoal."

Did you see what the Philippines did there? Marcos said his new laws were made for the purpose of "aligning our domestic laws with international law, specifically UNCLOS" (pna.gov.ph/articles/1237378) and indeed the Maritime Zones Act references UNCLOS no less than 26 times!

BUT...

But it actually makes a very cynical mockery of UNCLOS, using it - a convention that explicitly doesn't deal with sovereignty - to actually claim sovereignty over disputed territories.

And it gets worse with the second bill, the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act (https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/4404440513!.pdf).

This act allows the Philippines to designate and control sea lanes through what it now claims as its "archipelagic waters" - which conveniently include these disputed areas.

Think about what this means: first you claim sovereignty through the Maritime Zones Act, then you regulate navigation through "your" waters with the Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act.

It's a two-step process to establish de facto control over disputed territories.

Let's look at the actual situation in the Spratlys today to understand why this is so problematic:

• Vietnam currently occupies 21 islets and reefs
• the Philippines itself occupies 10
• Malaysia has 7
• China also has 7
• The ROC holds the largest island in the archipelago

Instead of working through these complex overlapping claims via multilateral negotiations, these new bills try to bypass the whole process by simply declaring these disputed areas as Philippine territory through domestic law, then regulating access to them as if they were uncontested Philippine waters.

This was China's first reaction to the new bill (https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xw/wjbxw/202411/t20241108_11523786.html) stating that it "seriously violates UNCLOS and substantially impairs the integrity and authority of UNCLOS" (true) and "seriously violates the DOC", the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea which is the multilateral negotiations between the SCS claimants that aims to find a solution to the disputes.

Frankly none of this would be a huge deal - just another unilateral move by crazy Marcos - if he didn't have U.S. official backing, a complete reversal from their historical position.

The same United States that, ironically, hasn't even ratified UNCLOS itself!

We've gone - as we saw earlier - from the U.S. explicitly stating these areas weren't covered by their mutual defense treaty with the Philippines, to now effectively endorsing expansionist claims that affect not just China, but also the ROC (Taiwan) and multiple ASEAN states.

In usual Matthew Miller Orwellian fashion, which we've seen on display wrt Gaza, he writes: "the US values Philippine leadership in upholding international law".

When as demonstrated earlier the acts are obviously an egregious and cynical violation of international law.

The question of course is whether it now means that the Spratlys - or "Kalayaan" - are now covered by the US-Philippines mutual defense treaty and whether this new set of legislation and the US's backing of it sets up the legal framework for this.

The US ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns, recently gave a first sign of the change in the US position, stating that "all the rest of the world understands that and recognises that this is sovereign Filipino territory" (https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1773938209380307072) with reference to the Second Thomas Shoal and the Scarborough Shoal - a statement that is demonstrably false given that Britain, France and Germany's 2020 note verbale explicitly states they "take no position" on sovereignty claims in the area.

This fits into a broader and deeply concerning pattern we see in U.S. conduct generally - whether in Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, or now the South China Sea - where the U.S. systematically undermines diplomatic solutions in favor of escalation and confrontation.

In summary, we have the Philippines transforming relatively recent territorial claims into domestic law, not only bypassing international legal processes but actually misusing them.

They're cynically citing UNCLOS to do exactly what UNCLOS says it can't do: claim territory.

And more worryingly, the U.S. backing of these claims could set up a legal framework to extend defense commitments to disputed territories - creating the conditions for yet another potential military confrontation when it's the last thing the world needs right now...

>Israeli fans of the Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team were reportedly attacked in Amsterdam in hours-long riots. The Dutch capital was hosting the team’s Europa League match against AFC Ajax.

>Hundreds of fans of the Israeli soccer team Maccabi Tel Aviv “were ambushed and attacked in Amsterdam” on Thursday night while leaving the stadium following a Europa League game against Dutch side Ajax, the Israeli Embassy in the United States said on the X social media platform.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202410/1321784.shtml

> The climate activist is supporting a push to overturn the national election by the country’s pro-Western opposition

> Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg joined thousands of demonstrators who marched on the Georgian parliament in Tbilisi on Monday as they protested against what they say was a rigged election last month. > > The parliamentary elections in the former Soviet republic took place on October 26, with the ruling Georgian Dream party, which advocates pragmatic relations with Russia, winning around 54% of the vote. > > Various opposition parties each garnered between 11% and 3%. The opposition has refused to recognize the results of the poll, insisting they were falsified. President Salome Zourabichvili has backed these claims, urging the people to protest and saying Georgia had become a “victim of a Russian special operation.”

> In an interview with Reuters, however, she insisted that she was not directly accusing Moscow of meddling, saying only that the “methodology used in support of most probably Russian… types is shown in the election.” > > “Of course, you cannot prove anything,” she admitted, while pointing to “clear links” between the ruling party and Russia.

(archive link)