"Our revenge will be the laughter of our children."
- Bobby Sands

These are Israeli children smilingly writing messages on the missiles that will be launched by the Israeli state to massacre the babies, women and men of the Gaza Strip.

Jews: observe this photo, carefully. Stare at it. The cognitive dissonance you are feeling when you look at this image and attempt to reconcile it with the assumptions of your Zionist indoctrination: this is the critical moment that you must seize and explore. Face it. Come to terms with the reality of the Zionist entity. The embrace of the Palestinian liberation struggle is the most definitive experience that a Jew can and must have, moreso than a Bar or Bat Mitzvah.

Consider this, please: Whereas the Nazis robbed the Jews of millions of human beings, the State of Israel has gone further and robbed the Jewish people of our humanity.

"The Black Panther Party has incredible slogans. It had an incredible rapid politicizing of masses of poor and oppressed people, on the one hand. But there was no coherent theory brought by the BPP. go back and find an old BPP newspaper. maoism, juche, bakunin, it was eclectic in terms of its philosophy. then later on huey put something forth called intercommunialism. it was incoherent theoretically. the APSP brought science, fought for science, it didnt mean we were always right but it meant we were using science whether we were right or wrong, we had methodology that was falsifiable."


§ 23 The dictatorship of the proletariat


from The ABC of Communism

For the realization of the communist system the proletariat must have all authority and all power in its hands. The prolet ariat cannot overthrow the old world unless it has power in its hands, unless for a time it becomes the ruling class. Manifestly the bourgeoisie will not abandon its position without a fight. For the bourgeoisie, communism signifies the loss of its former power, the loss of its ‘freedom’ to extort blood and sweat from the workers; the loss of its right to rent, interest, and profit. Consequently the communist revolution of the proletariat, the communist transformation of society, is fiercely resisted by the exploiters. It follows that the principal task of the workers’ government is to crush this opposition ruthlessly. Precisely because the opposition will inevitably be so embittered, it is necessary that the workers’ authority, the proletarian rule, shall take the form of a dictatorship. Now ‘dictatorship’ signifies very strict methods of government and a resolute crushing of enemies. It is obvious that in such a state of affairs there can be no talk of ‘freedom’ for everyone. The dictatorship of the proletariat is incompatible with freedom for the bourgeoisie. This is the very reason why the dictatorship of the proletariat is needed: to deprive the bourgeoisie of freedom; to bind it hand and foot; to make it impossible for it to carry on a struggle against the revolutionary proletariat. The more vigorous the resistance of the bourgeoisie, the more desperate the mobilization of its forces, the more threatening its attitude, the sterner and harsher must be the proletarian dictatorship. In extreme cases the workers’ government must not hesitate to use the method of the terror. Only when the suppression of the exploiters is complete, when they have ceased to resist, when it is no longer in their power to injure the working class, will the proletarian dictatorship grow progressively milder. Meanwhile the bourgeoisie, little by little, will fuse with the proletariat; the workers’ State will gradually die out; society as a whole will be transformed into a communist society in which there will be no classes.

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat (a temporary institution) the means of production will from the nature of the case belong, not to society as a whole, but only to the proletariat, to its State organization. For the time being, the working class, that is the majority of the population, monopolizes the means of production. Consequently there does not yet exist communist production in all its completeness. There still exists the division of society into classes; there is still a governing class (the proletariat); all the means of production are monopolized by this new governing class; there is still a State authority (the proletarian authority) which crushes its enemies. But as the resistance of the sometime capitalists, landlords, bankers, generals, and bishops, is crushed, in like measure the system of proletarian dictatorship will without any revolution undergo transformation into communism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not only an instrument for the crushing of enemies; it is likewise a lever for effecting economic transformation. Private ownership of the means of production must be replaced by social ownership; the bourgeoisie must be deprived of the means of production and exchange, must be ‘expropriated’. Who will and can do this? Obviously no isolated individual could do it, even if he should be of proletarian origin. If it were to be done by an isolated individual or even by isolated groups of individuals, at the best it would be nothing more than a dividing up, and at the worst it would be a mere act of robbery. We understand, therefore, why the expropriation of the bourgeoisie must be effected by the organized power of the proletariat. Now this organized power takes the form of the dictatorial workers’ State.

Objections to the dictatorship of the proletariat arise from various quarters. First of all come the anarchists. They say that they are in revolt against all authority and against every kind of State, whereas the communist bolsheviks are the sustainers of the Soviet Government. Every kind of government, they continue, involves the abuse of power and the limitation of freedom. For this reason it is necessary to overthrow the bolsheviks, the Soviet Government, the dictatorship of the proletariat. No dictatorship is necessary, no State is necessary. Such are the arguments of the anarchists. Only in appearance is their criticism revolutionary. In actual fact the anarchists do not stand more to the left, but more to the right than the bolsheviks. Why, indeed, do we need the dictatorship? We need it for the organized destruction of the bourgeois régime; we need it that we may crush the enemies of the proletariat by force. Quite openly we say, by force. The dictatorship is the axe in the hands of the proletariat. Anyone who is opposed to the dictatorship of the proletariat is one who is afraid of decisive action, is afraid of hurting the bourgeoisie, is no revolutionist. When we have completely vanquished the bourgeoisie, the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat will no longer exist. But as long as the life-and-death struggle continues it is absolutely incumbent upon the working class to crush its enemies utterly. AN EPOCH OF PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP MUST INEVITABLY INTERVENE BETWEEN A CAPITALIST AND A COMMUNIST SOCIETY.

Next, as objectors to the dictatorship, come the social democrats, and in especial the mensheviks. These worthies have completely forgotten what they wrote about the matter in former days. In our old programme, drawn up by ourselves and the mensheviks together, it is expressly stated: ‘An essential condition of the social revolution is the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is to say the conquest of political power by the proletariat, which will enable the workers to crush all resistance on the part of the exploiters.’ The mensheviks signed this statement. But when the time came for action, they raised a clamour against the crushing of the freedom of the bourgeoisie, against the suppression of bourgeois newspapers, against the bolshevist ‘reign of terror’, and so on. Even Plekhanoff, at one time, thoroughly approved of the most ruthless measures against the bourgeoisie, saying that we could deprive the bourgeois of their electoral rights, and so on. Nowadays the mensheviks have forgotten all this; they have taken refuge in the camp of the bourgeoisie.

Finally, a number of moral considerations are brought into the argument against us. We are told that we form our judgements like the savage Hottentots. The Hottentot says: ‘When I steal my neighbour’s wife, it is good; when he steals my wife, it is bad.’ The bolsheviks, it is contended, resemble these savages, for they say: ‘When the bourgeoisie uses force to crush the proletariat, it is bad; but when the proletariat uses force to crush the bourgeoisie, it is good.’ Those who argue thus, do not know what they are talking about. In the case of the Hottentots we are concerned with two equal individuals who are stealing one another’s wives for identical reasons. But the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are not on equal terms. Proletarians comprise an enormous class, bourgeois form a comparatively small group. The proletariat is fighting for the liberation of all mankind; but the bourgeoisie is fighting for the maintenance of oppression, wars, exploitation. The proletariat is fighting for communism, the bourgeoisie for the preservation of capitalism. If capitalism and communism were one and the same thing, then the bourgeoisie and the proletariat could be compared to the two Hottentots. The proletariat is fighting solely on behalf of the new social order. Whatever helps in the struggle is good; whatever hinders, is bad.


The white opportunism of Tim Wise versus the African Revolution

On February 19, 2014, a leading member of the Uhuru Solidarity Movement (USM), Wendy Craig, attended a speaking engagement at a local community college where Tim Wise, a figurehead of the liberal “anti-racist” movement delivered the keynote presentation.
Disturbed by Wise’s failure to comment on slavery or colonialism, Comrade Wendy posted a comment on the public Facebook profile of Tim Wise in which she called for him to go beyond simply criticizing racism, which has proven to be a lucrative career for Wise who, according to his booking agent, charges $7,500 plus expenses.
Wendy made a call for Wise and his supporters to unite with the demand led by African workers themselves for reparations, self-determination and liberation from white colonial domination.
Wendy put out the Uhuru Solidarity Movement campaign that is struggling to raise resources for the economic wing of the African Revolution, Black Star Industries, the foundation of the black workers’ economy.
The Uhuru Solidarity Movement is the organization of white people formed by and working under the leadership of the African People’s Socialist Party, led by Chairman Omali Yeshitela.
The Uhuru Solidarity Movement is guided by the Chairman’s theory of African Internationalism which recognizes that parasitic capitalism was built on slavery, genocide and colonialism and that Africans are one people dispersed throughout the world.
Others in the broader movement for social justice for African people have taken note of the white nationalism of Tim Wise. In a blog piece penned by an African named Ewuare X.
Osayande called “Word to the Wise: Unpacking the White Privilege of Tim Wise,” Osayande responds to a reactionary diatribe posted by Wise on his Twitter account.
Osayande writes of Wise, “white privilege has become the watch-word of the movement. Yet, for the most part, it has been used as a means for white anti-racists to point the finger at “those” whites or navel gaze and wallow in a guilt that doesn’t produce results.”
In 2013 Wise agreed to deliver the keynote speech at the conference of Teach For America. Black Agenda Report Managing Editor Bruce A. Dixon wrote in his article “Why Is Tim Wise Stamping the Anti-Racist Ghetto Passes at Teach For America” that “Teach For America is a major player in the elitist and racist scam to privatize public education, supplying mostly white grads of elite colleges as ghetto teacher temps.”
Our most recent effort to expose the opportunism of the anti-racist ideology of Wise is not a “subjective” combat between Wendy Craig and Wise himself, but a struggle between the revolutionary theory of African Internationalism as developed by Chairman Omali Yeshitela and the self-centered, idealist “anti-racism” espoused by Tim Wise and his followers.
Upon being called out for his opportunism, Wise responded with a rancorous stream of slander and invective, in which he said that his refusal to donate to Black Star Industries “means nothing… less than nothing” and called Wendy and other members of USM “cultists.”
Wise said that if you believe that “unless I give money to x, y, or z, ‘revolutionary group,’ led by ‘Chairman’ (fill in the blank), I am a fraud, then you should […] be prepared to be called a cult…”
“Seriously, if you are what the revolution requires as a vanguard (or indeed, if you even believe in a vanguard party of any kind), count me as clearly opposed to your particular revolution. You can consider me your enemy,” declared Wise in a refreshing moment of honesty.

Our conscious decision to struggle against the opportunism of Tim Wise is motivated by our commitment to win white people to take a principled stance of solidarity with the struggle for African liberation from colonial oppression.
As African Internationalists we unite with the analysis put forward by Chairman Omali that the problem is not “racism,” the ideas in the minds of white people that unite us with the ruling class against Africans and oppressed peoples. The problem is colonialism, a material social and economic system of domination of the entire African nation by white power and white people.

The people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Syria and Venezuela are not fighting against “racism,” but against imperialism and colonialism, for national liberation and self-determination over their own lands, lives and resources. The same is true of African people in the U.S. and around the world.

The anti-racism of Tim Wise maintains the status quo of a system built on slavery and genocide.
If a white person takes an unlearning racism workshop, does that change the fact that all white people in North America are colonial settlers resting uneasily on the land stolen from the Indigenous people? Does it change the fact that the entire white population rests upon a pedestal of colonial genocide and enslavement?
Colonialism, not racism, is the problem. This is not an abstract or semantic dispute. It is a theoretical question that fundamentally informs our practice.
If we are white anti-colonialists, we embrace the worldview of the African working class. We can express anti-colonialism in practice through principled solidarity with the African Revolution by joining the African People’s Solidarity Committee (APSC) and the Uhuru Solidarity Movement (USM). We can be part of the struggle to destroy colonialism and create a world without imperialism, war, oppression and colonial violence.

If you are a white “anti-racist” like Wise, you will perhaps pay a hefty sum to hear Wise speak on his campus lecture circuit or you might go to an “unlearning racism” workshop to work through all of your racist thoughts—but then get back into your Volvo and drive back to your house in the safety of the suburbs while Africans are still being gunned down by the police every 28 hours. Nothing will change, but you might feel better about yourself.
We have a choice to make. Which side are we going to be on?

We feel it is important to elaborate upon the differences between the worldview of Chairman Omali Yeshitela’s African Internationalism, the philosophy of the revolutionary African working class, and the anti-racist worldview of Tim Wise, so that white people can make an informed decision about which side you are on.
Are you on the side of the status quo and its liberal apologists like Tim Wise, or the side of the African Revolution in unity with all oppressed and colonized peoples on the planet.
The following series of quotations are culled from speeches and interviews of Tim Wise, juxtaposed with quotations from Chairman Omali Yehistela’s upcoming book, The Uneasy Equilibrium: The African Revolution versus Parasitic Capitalism:

Parasitic Capitalism: Tim Wise vs. Chairman Omali Yeshitela

TIM WISE: “The equation put forward by those who say ‘the real issue is class, and we need to end capitalism before we can end racism,’ may be exactly the inverse of reality. It may be, instead, that before any substantial alteration in the class system can become possible, we will have to attack white racism and substantially diminish it.”
CHAIRMAN OMALI YESHITELA: “Capitalism was born in disrepute, born of the rapes, massacres, occupations, genocides, colonialism and every despicable act humans are capable of inflicting. Capitalism was not responsible for some great, otherwise unimaginable leap in production, which—despite its contradictions—resulted in human progress and enlightenment. What capitalism did was to rip the vast majority of humanity out of the productive process—in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Australia and what has come to be known as the Americas. The hundreds of millions dead due to the slave trade and slavery itself; the millions exterminated everywhere Europeans ventured—these are people whose hands were forever removed from a relationship with nature that would result in ‘production.’

“Europeans achieved their national identity by way of this bloody process. This is not something that only happened a long time ago. The world’s peoples are suffering the consequences of capitalism’s emergence right now. Locked in colonies and the indirect rule of neocolonialism, restricted to lives characterized by brutality, ignorance and violence in the barrios of the Americas, in other internal colonies characterized as Indian reservations and black ghettos, kept under the paranoiac, nuclear-backed, armed-to-the-teeth watch of military forces born of a state power that has its origins in protecting the relationship between capitalism and its imperial pedestal, capitalism has been the absolute factor in restricting production and development. It has concentrated productive capacity in the hands of the world’s minority European population that sits atop the pedestal of our oppressive reality. Capitalism was not the good, “progressive” force that is the precursor to something better for “humanity.” Capitalism was a disaster that rescued Europe from a diseased feudal existence at the expense of the world.”

On Racism: Tim Wise vs. Chairman Omali Yeshitela

TIM WISE: Racism is an institutional arrangement, maintained by policies, practices and procedures—both formal and informal—in which some persons typically have more or less opportunity than others, and in which such persons receive better or worse treatment than others, because of their respective racial identities…. I believe that all people (white or of color) raised in a society where racism has been (and still is) so prevalent, will have internalized various elements of racist thinking: certain beliefs, stereotypes, assumptions, and judgments about others and themselves.
“I think for folks of color the key to combatting racism period is a) trusting their instincts and b) solidarity with one another. The system of white supremacy is intended to make folks of color doubt themselves, their intelligence, their abilities, their very sanity. And so it’s important to remember that folks of color know their own realities. They need to trust that.
CHAIRMAN OMALI YESHITELA: “We determined long ago that characterizing our movement as a struggle against racism was a self-defeating waste of time. What is called racism is simply the ideological foundation of capitalist imperialism. Rather than defining the system of our oppression, racism is a concept that denies Africans our national identity and dignity. It relegates us to the Sisyphean task of winning acceptance from, and often of becoming one with, our oppressors.
“With African Internationalism we have proven that race is simply a colonial invention originating from the enslavement and colonization of Africans and Africa that gave birth to capitalism and, simultaneously, the European nation. Our struggle has always been one for power, not against racism as we have shown.
“To the extent that we win power, the “racism” of others is irrelevant. Power is the great equalizer, the fundamental “aphrodisiac” that is capable of turning a racist of today into a fawning sycophant of tomorrow.
“The struggle against ‘racism’ is the struggle of the petty bourgeoisie fighting to integrate into the white capitalist world, to board the sinking ship of white power. It is a diversionary struggle reliant on failed philosophical assumptions that must be cast aside as a precondition for moving forward.
“This is not an innocent issue of semantics. The way this is understood informs our practice. The struggle against ‘racism’ presupposes one approach and the struggle against imperialist colonialism, another.
“We are not a race, but a nation of people, scattered across the globe.
“We have been pushed out of history by our imperialist oppressors, partially through the concept of ‘race.’ Our national homeland has been occupied in various ways for millennia. Our people have been captured and forcibly dispersed around the world. Our labor and land have been violently extracted to build the European nation and world capitalist system that determine our reality and the contours of the struggle in which we have been engaged for more than 500 years.
“The fight against AFRICOM cannot be characterized as a struggle against ‘racism’ any more than the liberation of our people in Haiti or the necessary unification of Africa to stop the rape of our Motherland and the theft of its resources. The material conditions Africans suffer worldwide have their origin in the attack on Africa that led to the capture of our national homeland and our people. Our poverty and susceptibility to ignorance, violence and material want throughout the world—including in the U.S., UK and the rest of Europe—result from the material conditions of existence in Africa since its capture and partition! Are the Iraqis and Afghans fighting against racism? What about all the people of South America and the Caribbean? Certainly, the bourgeois ideology of ‘racism’ serves to unite the vast majority of whites and even some Africans in support of the imperialist agenda.
“The anti-racists would have us fight for a place in a dying system; they would have us objectively uniting with our oppressors. Anti-racists would transform us into ‘house negroes,’ fighting to save the master’s burning mansion, to paraphrase Malcolm X.”

On “White Privilege”: Tim Wise vs. Chairman Omali Yeshitela

TIM WISE: “White privilege is simply the flipside of discrimination against people of color. The concept is rooted in the common-sense observation that there can be no down without an up, so that if people of color are the targets of discrimination, in housing, employment, the justice system, or elsewhere, then whites, by definition, are being elevated above those persons of color. Whites are receiving a benefit, vis-a-vis those persons of color: more opportunity because those persons of color are receiving less. Although I believe all persons are harmed in the long run by racism and racial inequity — and thus, white privilege comes at an immense social cost — it still exists as a daily reality throughout the social, political and economic structure of the United States.
CHAIRMAN OMALI YESHITELA: “[T]he concept of ‘White Skin Privilege’ [is] the notion that the struggle is against the privileges that white people are afforded by their skin color. The many problems with this white self-centered position are glaring to us within the Uhuru Movement today. This is a position that maintains the centrality of white people as subjects of history, one that obscures the parasitic relationship existing between Africans and whites, who function as the oppressor nation sitting on the socio-economic pedestal regardless of status or income. This relationship stems from the colonial parasitism that gave birth to the system of capitalism and the concept of whiteness itself.
“The idea that Africans would be essentially tied to a struggle to end white skin privilege is one that undermines the reality that our concern is not about the ‘skin privilege’ of whites. African people are fighting against white colonial domination of our entire people. The political advantages that whites have in the world are based on the nature of the system that elevated whites to significance through expropriation of our political and economic power over our own ‘rights’ and resources. Our struggle is against white colonial domination for the purpose of sustaining a parasitic economic relationship that requires political repression, both popular and State-initiated. It is the group arrogance of whites that is born of this parasitic economic foundation—an arrogance whose basic criticism of the system revolves around their own sense of significance.
“The white skin privilege position protects the actual system by attempting to end white skin privilege without destroying the colonial relationship that white people have to African people. The existence of ‘privilege’ is a statement of power. White privilege is white power in relationship to those who do not have power. Our struggle is not one against the privilege of whites. Rather it is a struggle for black power over our own black lives. That in and of itself undermines the concept and reality of white privilege.”

Conclusion: Join the African People’s Solidarity Committee and the Uhuru Solidarity Movement!

In the online debate with USM members and other Uhuru Movement organizers, Wise expounded on his vehement opposition to the rights of African people to set the terms for their own struggle for liberation and reparations, writing:
“[Wendy Craig] has taken it upon herself apparently to decide who in the black community is sufficiently revolutionary, and who thinks that giving her own money to that group makes her revolutionary, and more importantly, a bold example of what reparations should look like…which is both silly (white people don’t get to pick the leaders of the revolution) and evidence of an infantile understanding of reparations: reparations, to be transformative, must come from the state and private institutions that made enslavement and Jim Crow possible and profitable. The notion that individuals writing checks to a particular organization (which itself has no plan for redistributing those resources to the masses), is revolutionary is perhaps the most painfully ignorant notion ever floated by anyone, anywhere.”
Wise’s comment obscures the fact that all white people sit on the pedestal of colonial oppression of African people and therefore it is not only the governments and corporations that owe reparations but all white people.
That is why we are building a people’s movement for reparations that provides an opportunity for every white person to take a genuine stance in solidarity with African people through supporting the emergence of the African-led economy in the form of Black Star Industries.
We invite all open minded white people to join the Uhuru Solidarity Movement and build the Days in Solidarity with African People in your community. Bring the voice of the African Revolution, Chairman Omali Yeshitela, to your campus or community this year.
We also call on all white people and other allies of African people to make plans to attend the National Convention of the Uhuru Solidarity Movement on May 3-4, 2014 at the Uhuru House, 1245 18th Ave S, St. Petersburg, FL. Contact info@uhurusolidarity.org for more information.
She was an Algerian revolutionary who opposed French colonial rule of Algeria, joined the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) while a student activist and has worked as a vocal activist in the movement for women’s rights in independent Algeria. 
She worked as a liaison officer and personal assistant of FLN commander Yacef Saadi in Algiers. She was considered valuable to the FLN because she looked European and could easily infiltrate places where French soldiers hung out. She also assisted the FLN, in recruiting young Muslim women from the capital who could pass as Europeans. 
Dressed as Frenchwomen, Bouhired and two other female militants placed concealed bombs in the European sections of Algiers. Two bombs exploded, causing civilian casualties; but her bomb failed to detonate. 
This event and others were the catalyst for the Battle of Algiers, which raged until 1957. She eluded the French military and police until April 1957, when she was arrested, imprisoned, and subjected to appalling torture.
In July she was sentenced to death by the guillotine after a trial deemed a travesty of justice. However, She became a cause célèbre because of international media coverage of the French army’s systematic use of torture, and was eventually released.
  • She was an Algerian revolutionary who opposed French colonial rule of Algeria, joined the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) while a student activist and has worked as a vocal activist in the movement for women’s rights in independent Algeria. 
  • She worked as a liaison officer and personal assistant of FLN commander Yacef Saadi in Algiers. She was considered valuable to the FLN because she looked European and could easily infiltrate places where French soldiers hung out. She also assisted the FLN, in recruiting young Muslim women from the capital who could pass as Europeans. 
  • Dressed as Frenchwomen, Bouhired and two other female militants placed concealed bombs in the European sections of Algiers. Two bombs exploded, causing civilian casualties; but her bomb failed to detonate. 
  • This event and others were the catalyst for the Battle of Algiers, which raged until 1957. She eluded the French military and police until April 1957, when she was arrested, imprisoned, and subjected to appalling torture.
  • In July she was sentenced to death by the guillotine after a trial deemed a travesty of justice. However, She became a cause célèbre because of international media coverage of the French army’s systematic use of torture, and was eventually released.

Love of life necessitates violence. Ghassan wasn’t a pacifist. He was killed in the class struggle like Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Ernst Thälmann, Lumumba and Che Guevara. As they loved life, so did he. Like them he saw the necessity of revolutionary violence as self-defence against the oppression from the exploiting classes. In spite of repeated threats against his life he was not subdued.

The Palestinian liberation movement has been forced to answer violence with violence; it has sacrificed itself in the unequal struggle and it has been forced to face death every day. A Western correspondent asked Ghassan shortly before his assassination: “Does death have a meaning to you?”

“Of course death means a lot. The important thing is to know why. Self-sacrifice, within the context of revolutionary action, is an expression of the very highest understanding of life, and of the struggle to make life worthy of a human being. The love of life for a person becomes a love for the life of his people’s masses, and his rejection that their life persists in being full of continuous misery, suffering and hardship. Hence, his understanding of life becomes a social virtue, capable of convincing the militant fighter that self-sacrifice is a redemption of his people’s life. This is a maximum expression of attachment to life.”

— Anni Kanafani on her late husband Ghassan Kanafani (via fala7idreams)


Children killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan & Yemen

Name | Age | Gender
Noor Aziz | 8 | male
Abdul Wasit | 17 | male
Noor Syed | 8 | male
Wajid Noor | 9 | male
Syed Wali Shah | 7 | male
Ayeesha | 3 | female
Qari Alamzeb | 14| male
Shoaib | 8 | male
Hayatullah KhaMohammad | 16 | male
Tariq Aziz | 16 | male
Sanaullah Jan | 17 | male
Maezol Khan | 8 | female
Nasir Khan | male
Naeem Khan | male
Naeemullah | male
Mohammad Tahir | 16 | male
Azizul Wahab | 15 | male
Fazal Wahab | 16 | male
Ziauddin | 16 | male
Mohammad Yunus | 16 | male
Fazal Hakim | 19 | male
Ilyas | 13 | male
Sohail | 7 | male
Asadullah | 9 | male
khalilullah | 9 | male
Noor Mohammad | 8 | male
Khalid | 12 | male
Saifullah | 9 | male
Mashooq Jan | 15 | male
Nawab | 17 | male
Sultanat Khan | 16 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 13 | male
Noor Mohammad | 15 | male
Mohammad Yaas Khan | 16 | male
Qari Alamzeb | 14 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 17 | male
Abdullah | 18 | male
Ikramullah Zada | 17 | male
Inayatur Rehman | 16 | male
Shahbuddin | 15 | male
Yahya Khan | 16 |male
Rahatullah |17 | male
Mohammad Salim | 11 | male
Shahjehan | 15 | male
Gul Sher Khan | 15 | male
Bakht Muneer | 14 | male
Numair | 14 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Taseel Khan | 18 | male
Zaheeruddin | 16 | male
Qari Ishaq | 19 | male
Jamshed Khan | 14 | male
Alam Nabi | 11 | male
Qari Abdul Karim | 19 | male
Rahmatullah | 14 | male
Abdus Samad | 17 | male
Siraj | 16 | male
Saeedullah | 17 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Salman | 12 | male
Fazal Wahab | 18 | male
Baacha Rahman | 13 | male
Wali-ur-Rahman | 17 | male
Iftikhar | 17 | male
Inayatullah | 15 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Adnan | 16 | male
Najibullah | 13 | male
Naeemullah | 17 | male
Hizbullah | 10 | male
Kitab Gul | 12 | male
Wilayat Khan | 11 | male
Zabihullah | 16 | male
Shehzad Gul | 11 | male
Shabir | 15 | male
Qari Sharifullah | 17 | male
Shafiullah | 16 | male
Nimatullah | 14 | male
Shakirullah | 16 | male
Talha | 8 | male

Afrah Ali Mohammed Nasser | 9 | female
Zayda Ali Mohammed Nasser | 7 | female
Hoda Ali Mohammed Nasser | 5 | female
Sheikha Ali Mohammed Nasser | 4 | female
Ibrahim Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 13 | male
Asmaa Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 9 | male
Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | female
Fatima Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 3 | female
Khadije Ali Mokbel Louqye | 1 | female
Hanaa Ali Mokbel Louqye | 6 | female
Mohammed Ali Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | male
Jawass Mokbel Salem Louqye | 15 | female
Maryam Hussein Abdullah Awad | 2 | female
Shafiq Hussein Abdullah Awad | 1 | female
Sheikha Nasser Mahdi Ahmad Bouh | 3 | female
Maha Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 12 | male
Soumaya Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 9 | female
Shafika Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 4 | female
Shafiq Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 2 | male
Mabrook Mouqbal Al Qadari | 13 | male
Daolah Nasser 10 years | 10 | female
AbedalGhani Mohammed Mabkhout | 12 | male
Abdel- Rahman Anwar al Awlaki | 16 | male
Abdel-Rahman al-Awlaki | 17 | male
Nasser Salim | 19

Obviously, these figures don’t include children killed in Somalia & Afghanistan.

If ever these strikes are reported in the MSM, many of these children are listed as “militants,” a word redefined by President Obama to mean any male of military age in a strike zone, so as to disguise the number of children killed by his drone policy. Under this abuse of presidential power with lack of judicial oversight, Obama has escalated George W. Bush’s drone program more than five times over. 

Not only are children & civilians caught in strike zones, but drones are killing rescuers & family members with the “double tap” method, a second strike in the same zone. The “double tap” is considered to be a war crime under international law.