Focused on providing independent journalism.

Saturday, 20 December 2014

Malaysian wannabe-IS members taking bank loans to fund 'one way trip' to martyrdom


© AFP/ISIL



Malaysian wannabe-IS members have been applying for loans in banks, as well as getting rid of most of their property, in order to fund what they believe to be a one way road to martyrdom, the citing investigation papers on five cases.

Sources close to the police investigation told the publication that many of the suspects have taken out the loans with no intention of ever paying them back as they believe they are on a one way road to martyrdom. This practice had been going for some time and sources said there were many Malaysian fighters in Iraq and Syria who had got there with bank loans.


One woman who was arrested as she was trying to leave Malaysia for Syria had got a loan for RM100,000 ($28,695).


Another 30-year old former National Service trainer, who was arrested at Kuala Lumpur International Airport on Wednesday, had taken out a RM20,000 ($5,739) loan.


Some of them subscribed to the idea that even if they do come back to Malaysia, they would be arrested and settling the loan would be the least of their problems one source said.



© AFP/ISIL



Datuk Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay, the principal assistant director of Malaysia's Special Branch Counter-Terrorism Division (SB-CTD), said that this method of getting hold of cash was becoming popular with home grown IS members.

The trend of taking out personal loans from banks is on the rise. They include young militants, especially those in their early twenties. Those with low credit ratings will apply for personal loans for as low as RM5,000 ($1,434), he said.


He said that many jihadists who go to Iraq and Syria to fight with IS arm themselves and can buy a Kalashnikov AK47 assault rifle for as little as $570. While IS also pays foreign jihadists a comfortable monthly allowance.


Other sources told that counterterrorism detectives were also watching religious schools and orphanages, which had organized fund-raising activities to support IS in the past.


International Islamic University Malaysia's Department of Fiqh and Usul al-Fiqh's (Islamic Law and Jurisprudence) Wan Rumaizi Wan Husin said the militants did not have a thorough understanding of Islam.


"In Islam, even before you think of going for jihad, you must clear off all your debts and make sure your family is taken care of.


"If I may remind them of a quote from a hadith that says, 'The Prophet said all the sins of a martyr in the cause of Allah are forgiven, except debt'."


Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog


Surprise! Another study confirms USDA Dietary Guidelines on fats are wrong


A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine made waves through the mainstream media. In a stunning meta-analysis of the relationship between dietary fats and heart disease that included over 600,000 people, the researchers came to the following conclusion:

"Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."



This conclusion flies in direct contrast to the USDA dietary guidelines, which recommend polyunsaturated fats (think corn and soybean oils) as healthy, and saturated fats as unhealthy (think animal fat and coconut oil) in terms of cardiovascular health.

This is certainly not the first study that has been published in the past few years clearly showing there is no link between saturated fats consumption and heart disease.


In 2010, a meta analysis was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition :Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. This analysis looked at 347,747 patients from clinical studies during a 23 year period and found that there was no link between saturated fat and heart disease.


In 2013, a study was published inAdvances in Nutrition by Glen D. Lawrence, PhD, from the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Long Island University in Brooklyn, NY: Dietary Fats and Health: Dietary Recommendations in the Context of Scientific Evidence. Dr. Lawrence looked at several meta analyses regarding dietary fats and oils, including one meta-analysis regarding consumption of red meat that included over 1 million people, that showed no connection between saturated fat consumption and heart disease. He too concluded that dietary guidelines against saturated fats were wrong, and pointed out how the research actually showed that the consumption of saturated fats in dairy and coconut oil promoted better heart health (see: Study: Saturated Fat Not Associated with Risk of Coronary Artery Disease, Coconut Oil and Dairy Fat Healthy).


In this current study, it seems very obvious that the researchers were questioning conventional dietary advice encouraging the consumption of polyunsaturated fats and the avoidance of saturated fats as a way of preventing heart disease. This is what they wrote regarding the purpose of the study:



Background: Guidelines advocate changes in fatty acid consumption to promote cardiovascular health.

Purpose: To summarize evidence about associations between fatty acids and coronary disease.



Study Funded by Medical Industry Insiders

What is so surprising about this research is that it was published by pharmaceutical industry insiders, mostly from the U.K. Here is the list of universities the research authors are from: University of Cambridge and Medical Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; Centre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom; and Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.


Note that Harvard is the lone U.S. research center in the study. Dr. Mozaffarian is one of a few researchers at Harvard who has begun to question the relationship between dietary fats and heart disease in recent years.


The study was funded with a grant from: "the British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Cambridge National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and Gates Cambridge."


Will Government Dietary Guidelines Change?


So why are Big Pharma industry insiders publishing a study like this after years of promoting just the opposite? I don't know. So will official government advice regarding dietary fats now change?


In the U.K., perhaps. Most of the researchers were from the U.K., and most of the participants in the studies that were analyzed were also from Europe.


Last year, Sweden took some major steps towards moving away from the low-fat dietary advice with many researchers there encouraging a high-fat low-carb dietary approach (see: Sweden Becomes First Western Nation to Reject Low-fat Diet Dogma in Favor of Low-carb High-fat Nutrition). Also, last year British cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra made waves when he published an article in the British Medical Journal stating that carbohydrates, not saturated fats, were the real problem associated with obesity and other diseases (see: Cardiologist Speaks Out On The Myth of Bad Saturated Fat, Stating Carbs Are More Damaging Than Butter).


What about the U.S. and the USDA dietary guidelines? Any chance they will change to reflect all of this modern research showing their advice is wrong?




To help understand the answer to that question, let's see how the mainstream U.S. media covered this story in the past 24 hours. Here is how Reuters covered the story, which was picked up by many U.S. media companies like Fox News:


Linda Van Horn, from the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, told Reuters Health the study was well done and demonstrated that some fatty acids are better than others. But it's not enough to change current guidelines, she added.


Van Horn chaired the 2010 U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee which was involved in creating federal recommendations and is a spokesperson for the American Heart Association. She was not involved in the new review.


"People need to eat as has been recommended - this paper changes nothing about the adverse impact of saturated fat," she said.


Van Horn pointed out that there is no biological need for saturated fats. (Source.)




And here is what Fox News Big Pharma representative Dr. Manny Alvarez said:


From a standpoint of what is healthier for you, certainly, polyunsaturated fats are the way to go.... So don't get confused: If you give in to a diet high in saturated fats, your internal plumbing will become clogged. (Source. And yes, he was discussing this new study which concluded just the opposite.)




Here is a quote from a report in NPR:


Now, of course, not everyone is convinced by the new studies that question the link between saturated fat and heart disease. Groups including the World Health Organization and the American Heart Association promote a low intake of saturated fat.


And vegan groups do as well. "I think there is support for removing all animal products from the diet for health purposes," says of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which advocates vegan diets. (Source.)




So do you think the U.S. government or medical system will change their dietary guidelines? Me neither.

Coconut Oil Saturated Fat Not Part of the Study


I did purchase the study and I read the whole thing, as I have learned to not trust what the media spins on published studies if it doesn't fit their agenda. Coconut oil was not included in this study at all, and it is nature's richest source of saturated fat, being over 95% saturated. Only long chain saturated fatty acids were studied, as contained in dairy and animal fats.


This is important, because we have published numerous studies here and at CoconutOil.com showing just how healthy coconut oil is in regards to cardiovascular health. So if some of the participants had been consuming healthy coconut oil as a source of saturated fat, it could have skewed the results a bit in terms of overall saturated fat consumption. Coconut oil is continually attacked in the mainstream media as "unhealthy" and dangerous simply because of its association with being a saturated fat. Those who dissent, usually point out that coconut oil is a different kind of saturated fat, which makes it healthy.


But even if the long-chain saturated fatty acids in animal fats and dairy are not associated with an increase in heart disease, how much more does that exonerate coconut oil? (See: Coconut Oil is Beneficial for Your Heart: Shining the Truth on Mainstream Media's Negative Attacks Against Coconut Oil.)


Conclusions


So why do Europeans seem to be coming around to the position that traditional saturated fats that our ancestors have enjoyed for thousands of years are not the bad guys we were all led to believe the past 40 years? And why are Americans not coming around to this position?




One reason: politics. It is not science at all, and it never has been.

Since post World War II we have had the technology to extract oil from seeds we never did before in the history of human nutrition. With the expeller-pressed technology developed during World War II, dietary oils from soybeans and corn soon became a big part of the American diet.


Today, these are also among the most subsidized crops in the U.S., which keeps the price of "vegetable oil" (almost exclusively derived from soy and corn) artificially low. They are almost completely derived from GMO varieties today as well. With such low pricing on these "vegetable oils," they are exported all around the world as native oils cannot compete in the market place. The companies controlling soybeans and corn in the U.S. have tremendous political power.


Europe is the #1 destination for exports of American soybean oil. Europeans also have GMO labeling requirements that the U.S. does not.


Could Europeans be waking up to the fact that they have been sold a false bill of goods over the past 40 years when it comes to these dietary standards regarding oils and heart disease? Could it be they are on to the game and finally understand that these policies have allowed cheap American imports of vegetable oils to flood their markets?


Europeans in general are much more savvy consumers than American consumers, and many of them never bought into the low-fat and polyunsaturated fat theories to begin with. The French, for example, stuck to their "Mediterranean diet" principles heavy in olive oil and butter, and historically have had lower rates of heart disease than Americans.


So maybe Europe has finally caught on to the game, and cheap imported vegetable oils from the U.S. may be on the way out.


Reference


About the author

Brian Shilhavy, BA, MA, is the CEO of Tropical Traditions and the Editor of Health Impact News . He learned first hand in the late 1990s and early 2000 that the truth regarding health and nutrition about fats and oils was NOT being published in the mainstream media. Living in the rural Philippines with his Filipina wife and children taught him a lot about native nutrition in general, and coconut oil in particular. Seeing people in their 70s and 80s who had consumed large amounts of saturated fats their entire lives still living and working on the farm instead of resting in nursing homes was a real eye-opener. It led Brian to start studying the whole issue of fats and oils, and the lipid theory of heart disease.


He started publishing this research on the Internet (CoconutOil.com ), and when he and his wife started offering organic Virgin Coconut Oil in the US market, the testimonies started pouring in. The Coconut Oil revolution had begun.


This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog


25 homes evacuate an unstoppable gas leak in another Ohio fracking 'incident'

fracking

© Unknown



Another day, another toxic spill thanks to fracking:


About 25 families in eastern Ohio have been unable to live in their houses for the past three days because of a natural-gas leak at a fracking well that crews cannot stop.


Bethany McCorkle, a spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the state agency that regulates oil and gas, said crews lost control of the Monroe County well on Saturday. [...]


The well is not on fire, but the gas could be explosive.




Ohio has had its share of fracking accidents this year. In May, a blowout resulted in an oil spill into an Ohio river tributary. And then this happened the following month:


On the morning of June 28, a fire broke out at a Halliburton fracking site in Monroe County, Ohio. As flames engulfed the area, trucks began exploding and thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals spilled into a tributary of the Ohio River, which supplies drinking water for millions of residents. More than 70,000 fish died.




In October, a well ruptured in eastern Ohio, spreading natural gas and methane, and resulted in the evacuation of over 400 families.


[This] incident was the third in three days tied to fracking operations in eastern Ohio. On Sunday, a worker at a fracking site in Guernsey County was burned in a fire. On Monday, a pipeline carrying natural-gas condensate ruptured in Monroe County, igniting several acres of woods.




Explosions resulting in frequent evacuations, leaks into drinking-water supplies, earthquakes - but don't worry, folks. Fracking is perfectly safe.

.


Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog


U.S. sends four Guantanamo prisoners home to Afghanistan


© Reuters/Bob Strong

The frontier road parallels the security fence leading to the Northeast gate at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, March 8, 2013.



Four Afghans held for over a decade at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been sent home, the Pentagon said on Saturday, the latest step in a gradual push by the Obama administration to close the jail.

The men were flown to Kabul overnight aboard a U.S. military plane and released to Afghan authorities, the first such transfer of its kind to the war-torn country since 2009.


With the repatriation of the four Afghans, Guantanamo's detainee population has been whittled down to 132. Several more prisoners of "various nationalities" are expected to be transferred before the end of the year and a further unspecified number in succeeding weeks, according to a senior U.S. official.


Obama promised to shut the internationally condemned prison when he took office nearly six years ago, citing the damage it inflicted on America's image around the world. But he has been unable to do so, partly because of obstacles posed by Congress.


The repatriation of the four Afghans, identified as "low-level detainees" who were cleared for transfer long ago and are not considered security risks in their homeland, had been in the pipeline for months.


But in what one senior U.S. official described as an expression of growing confidence in the new Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, who took over from Hamid Karzai in September, Washington pressed ahead with the transfer after he formally requested it.


The continued detention of Afghans at Guantanamo -- eight remain there -- has long been deeply unpopular across the ideological spectrum in Afghanistan.


The release comes at a time when most U.S. troops are due to leave Afghanistan by year-end, even as Taliban insurgents are intensifying their bloody campaign to re-establish their hardline Islamist regime that was toppled in a U.S.-backed military intervention in 2001.


All four men - identified as Shawali Khan, Khi Ali Gul, Abdul Ghani and Mohammed Zahir - were originally detained on suspicion of being members of the Taliban or affiliated groups.


But a second U.S. official said: "Most if not all of these accusations have been discarded and each of these individuals at worst could be described as low-level, if even that."


The Afghan government gave the United States "security assurances" for the treatment of the former prisoners and was expected to reunite them with their families, the official said.


Closing prison won't be easy


Guantanamo was opened by Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, to house terrorism suspects rounded up overseas, with Afghans originally the largest group. Most of the detainees have been held for a decade or more without being charged or tried.


Two weeks ago a U.S. Senate report delivered a scathing indictment of the harsh Bush-era interrogation program used on terrorism suspects. Obama banned the techniques when he took office in 2009.


Thirteen other prisoners of various nationalities have been transferred from Guantanamo since early November, including six who were sent to Uruguay for resettlement earlier this month.


But emptying the prison will not be easy.


In a statement issued on Friday, Obama renewed his complaints about restrictions on Guantanamo transfers that Congress kept in place in a recent defense spending bill. "The Guantanamo detention facility's continued operation undermines our national security," he said. "We must close it."


Among the detainees released this weekend, Khan, 51, was sent to Guantanamo 11 years ago "on the flimsiest of allegations", according to the Center for Constitutional Rights. His lawyers said he had been a driver for the Karzai government.


According to a Guantanamo database compiled by the New York Times and National Public Radio, Gul, 51, was arrested in 2002 and accused of being a Taliban intelligence officer. He insisted he never worked for the group and that two of his "enemies" had turned him over to U.S. troops.


Ghani, 42, was captured in 2002 as a suspected member of a Taliban-linked faction and was originally accused of "war crimes". He said someone falsely accused him of carrying out a rocket attack, the documents show, and was cleared by an inter-agency review.


Zahir, 61, was arrested in 2003 and accused of links to Taliban weapons caches, but he denied any connection and was also cleared for transfer.


Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog


Stratfor head: Yanukovich overthrow "most blatant coup in history"

stratfor

In a December 19th interview in the Russian magazine , George Friedman, who is the Founder and CEO of Stratfor, the 'Shadow CIA' firm, says of the overthrow of Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych that occurred on February 22nd of 2014: "It really was the most blatant coup in history." Perhaps he is saying this because of the videos that were uploaded to the Web which showed it to be so, but this statement by him contradicts the description that is asserted by the U.S. White House and the European Union, and the Western press, which description is that Yanukovych's overthrow was instead just the result of the U.S. Government's $5+ billion expense since 1991 to establish 'democracy' in Ukraine.

Friedman further says that "The Russian authorities can not tolerate a situation in which western armed forces will be [in Ukraine] a hundred kilometers from Kursk or Voronezh [in Russia]", and that the goal of the U.S. is to "maintain the balance of power in Europe, helping the weaker party," which he says is Europe. He furthermore says, "The United States considers the most dangerous potential alliance to be between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources." So: the U.S. is trying to antagonize Germans against Russia. This will weaken both of them. However, that would be not a "balance of power" but an increasing imbalance of power in favor of the United States. The Russian interviewer failed to catch his inconsistency on that.


Friedman was consistent with the U.S. Government's line that Russia is a threat to the U.S.; he said: "No American president can afford to sit idly by if Russia becomes more and more influential." He said that this is especially the case in the Middle East, and regarding Syria. But he then clarified himself, "I'm not saying that Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict was the cause of the Ukrainian crisis, it would be a stretch." Regarding Ukraine, he said: "The bottom line is that the strategic interests of the United States are to prevent Russia from becoming a hegemon. And the strategic interests of Russia are not to allow the US close to its borders." He avoided even to mention the United States as possibly being a "hegemon" itself, one which is trying, along with its NATO allies, to crush Russia for its resisting America's hegemony - that is, global dominance by America's aristocracy.


President Obama had something to say about this very question when speaking at West Point on May 28th and asserting (with loaded anti-Russian assumptions and false outright allegations): "Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us. ... The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed [sp.: past [[somebody at the White House didn't even know the difference between 'past' and 'passed' and still don't, six months afterward]] and it will be true for the century to come." So: The U.S. President was telling West Point's graduating cadets that the U.S. is the only hegemon and will stay that way for at least a hundred years. This was their marching-order, from the U.S President himself, their own Commander-in-Chief, representing America's aristocracy (in this alleged 'democracy'), for whom they will fight and kill, and, some of them, perhaps even die, or else become crippled for life.


Friedman closed by saying, "Russia will not make concessions in the Crimea, this is obvious. But I believe that it could face serious problems with supplies to the peninsula. Yet Moscow can not retreat from some of its requirements with regard to Ukraine. It can not be allowed that Western military appear in Ukraine. This is a nightmare in Moscow. ... This is already happening, slowly but occurs. And it will be something that Russia does not accept ... The US is not aiming that you need to have control over Ukraine, but that it is important that it is not controlled by Russia." Here he was repeating his idea that America isn't seeking to achieve advantage over Russia - that the U.S. has no hegemonic intentions, just "balance of power," notwithstanding the Commander-in-Chief's charge, months earlier, to his troops, for them to extend America's hegemony another century.


He said that this overthrow in Ukraine was a coup aimed against Russia, but then he closed with this statement that Russia is hegemonic but that the U.S. is not, which contradicts it.


Apparently, Mr. Friedman was nervous about losing U.S. Government business by being too honest, but he had already been too honest about the coup, and his self-contradictions didn't help him at all. Perhaps he believed that the vast majority of people can be fooled, as Americans were about "Saddam's WMD" and still are about "torture aimed at finding truth," none of which ever was true, but all of which the aristocracy wanted people to believe to be true. Their rule seems to be: Fools never learn, it's what they are and will continue to be, no matter how often they've been fooled in the past. Perhaps George Friedman was relying on this rule. But why then did he say things that are true but that his paymasters say are not? Might this 'intelligence expert' not be intelligent after all? If so, he has fooled the U.S. Government into thinking that he is: he's succeeded.


Here is an attempt to address the same issues that Friedman did, but without internal contradictions.


Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog


New York cop fired for stopping fellow officer from choking suspect; denied pension


© Countercurrentnews.com

Former Buffalo Police Officer Cariol Horne



She was fired for trying to stop a fellow officer from abusing a suspect. Now, former Buffalo Police Officer Cariol Horne is in a battle to get her pension.

"November 1, 2006, there was a call of an officer in trouble at 707 Walden," Cariol Horne recalls.


The officer in need of assistance was Gregory Kwiatkowski. He was responding to a domestic dispute at the aforementioned address, between Neal Mack and his girlfriend who was living with him.


But by the time that officer Horne got there, she says that Mack had already been placed under arrest.


"He was handcuffed in the front and he was sideways and being punched in the face by Gregory Kwiatkowski," Horne recounted.


There were nearly a dozen other officers at the scene, who dragged Mack from the home. Horne says that once he was outside, Officer Kwiatkowski lost all control.


"Gregory Kwiatkowski turned Neal Mack around and started choking him. So then I'm like, 'Greg! You're choking him,' because I thought whatever happened in the house he was still upset about so when he didn't stop choking him I just grabbed his arm from around Neal Mack's neck," Horne said.


First he put a chokehold of a handcuffed suspect, but then when officer Horne tried to stop him, she says that "he comes up and punches me in the face and I had to have my bridge replaced."


Horne was then fired and charged with obstruction for "jumping on officer Kwiatkowski's back and/or striking him with her hands," in self-defense after he punched her in the face.


Officer Kiwatkowski wrote in a sworn statement that "she never got on top of me," indicating that while she tried to stop him, the official report was pure fabrication and he was the aggressor at every turn.


Now, with her 19 year career destroyed for trying to stop a bad cop from abusing a suspect, this mother of five is told she cannot qualify for a pension.


"My daughter said, 'Mommy, why did you go to work that day?' She never said, 'Why did you do what you did?' or 'I wish you wouldn't have done it.' She just said, 'I wish you wouldn't have gone to work that day.' So I don't regret it."


Officer Kwiatkowski, for his part, was forced to retire after getting suspended for choking another police officer in a separate incident, as well as punching another officer when he was off the clock, in yet another incident. Still, in spite of this obvious validation of her claims about Kwiatkowski's insanity and brutality, Horne is still being blocked from her pension.


The City of Buffalo Common Council recently sent Horne's case to the New York State retirement system, saying that they lack the authority to restore her pension. That review is still underway and a determination has not yet been made. Help us spread the word! This is what happens to "good cops" when they try to stop bad cops: the bad cops force them out of their jobs!


Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog


2 New York police officers shot dead in 'execution style' ambush



© Kena Betancur/Getty Images/AFP



Two NYPD officers have been shot dead by a suspect who ambushed their patrol car 'execution style' in Brooklyn. The perpetrator was chased by police and reportedly died of a self-inflicted gun wound.

Both officers succumbed to gunshot wounds to the head, City Councilman Robert Cornegy said at a news conference according to CBS New York.


The shooting took place in Brooklyn outside of the Tompkins Houses at around 3pm. The shooter reportedly came out of the building before shooting the officers patrolling the area. According to the witnesses he then ran away into the subway where he was either shot by police chasing him or died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.


The wounded officers were rushed to Woodhull Hospital in "grave" condition as at least one of them was hit in the head.


It's an execution a law enforcement source told The Post about the ambush.


According to preliminary reports, the uniformed officers were working overtime as part of an anti-terrorism drill as they sat in their marked police car on a Bedford - Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, street corner.





Comment: Tompkins House is part of the New York City Housing Authority and was built in 1964. Not the friendliest of neighborhoods as there have been many shootings there. This execution style shooting is very disturbing and now that the shooter is dead, we may never know the reason for the shooting. But with all of the protests lately on police brutality, this is not a real surprise, especially during an anti-terrorism drill.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog