gabriella raggi

[InsideOver @insideoverita]

Aveva 19 anni quando, tre anni fa, ha indossato la divisa della Protezione civile di Gaza. Da allora Mohammed Tammous correva verso le macerie mentre tutti gli altri scappavano.

A febbraio aveva lanciato un appello: le sue squadre lavoravano con pale, zappe e cesoie a mano.
All'1:41 di oggi, 7 ottobre, è stato colpito da un attacco israeliano mentre andava a soccorrere i feriti davanti all'ospedale Kamal Adwan, nel nord della Striscia. Mohammed è morto poco dopo.

Secondo i corrispondenti dell'agenzia palestinese Shehab, un primo raid ha colpito un gruppo di civili vicino al cancello nord dell'ospedale, ferendo due persone. Quando le squadre di soccorso sono arrivate, l'area è stata colpita di nuovo.

Il Kamal Adwan era l'ultimo ospedale funzionante del nord di Gaza. Assediato e bombardato per mesi, è stato preso d'assalto dall'esercito israeliano il 27 dicembre 2024. Il suo direttore, Hussam Abu Safiya, è stato arrestato quel giorno ed è ancora in carcere, senza accuse né processo.

Nella stessa giornata, alle 10:44 del mattino un uomo è stato ucciso da un raid israeliano a ovest di Gaza City. Alle 14:37 due persone sono state ferite dal fuoco dell'esercito a est del campo di al-Maghazi, una alla testa in modo critico.

Alle 14:58 un drone israeliano ha ucciso un uomo e ferito altre persone nel quartiere di Tal al-Hawa. Alle 17:35 colpi d'arma da fuoco hanno raggiunto le tende degli sfollati nel campo Hamad, a nord di Khan Younis. Alle 19:24 una bambina è stata ferita a un piede nel campo turco, vicino a Hamad City. Alle 19:28 un raid ha colpito la scuola Shuhada al-Zaytoun, a sud-est di Gaza City.

Il cessate il fuoco è in vigore dal 10 ottobre 2025. Israele lo ha violato 5.147 volte. Secondo le autorità sanitarie palestinesi, dalla tregua sono stati uccisi 1.454 palestinesi e feriti 5.090.

Dal 7 ottobre 2023, l'esercito israeliano ha ucciso 1.701 operatori sanitari e 140 membri della Protezione civile.

Mohammed Tammous è il centoquarantunesimo.

#gazagenocide #israel

[gabriella raggi @gabriraggi]

@AlessandroPipi4 Roma post unitaria. 1880. l'insediamento di Testaccio per gli operai del comparto industriale all'ostiense fu programmato lì sopra tutto perchè lontano dai quartieri borghesi. e dal centro storico. Le periferie nascono da un programma di espulsione per cittadini con meno tutele

[gabriella raggi @gabriraggi]

@AlessandroPipi4 mò "periferia malfamata" mi sembra eccessivo e non rispettoso . in periferia ci abita la maggioranza di persone perbene. non creiamo ghetti, ci pensa già la destra a questo

[gabriella raggi @gabriraggi]

@usludurkizim 17

[Annarita @Ecatetriformis]

Miserabili
Sempre e ovunque

Prendere nota su sta gran ceppa che chiunque si reputi essere UMANO vi odia

[gabriella raggi @gabriraggi]

@MilaSpicola pure per noi

[gabriella raggi @gabriraggi]

@lageloni continuo a stupirmi sempre di quanto profondamente sbagliato sia per questi severi censori sovranisti il senso di identità e di cura del ns Paese, mentre l'evasione fiscale è all'apice, il senso di comunità al minimo. Un paese finito.

[🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉 @apocalypseos]

Jeffrey Sachs: a president stood at the UN and claimed the right to annihilate a civilization. Congress said nothing. That is the constitutional order collapsing in public.

“I shuddered then, and I shudder now that a president of the United States can stand at the podium of the UN General Assembly speaking to world leaders in a language of annihilation of other countries and of sending them to hell. It was ghastly, unprecedented, totally disgusting, disgraceful for the United States. But I would also say a measure of how broken the constitutional order of the United States is.

Trump basically said, like a madman, which I think arguably he is, that he and he alone will decide the survival of Iran. He said that he has a big, big choice to make. Maybe Iran will be a great country. Maybe Iran will be annihilated. Maybe Trump will send it to hell. And not only was the language vulgar in a way that I certainly could never in my lifetime have imagined coming from a president of the United States or anybody standing at the UN podium—because what Trump said was odious and completely in violation of every religious, moral, ethical, and legal standard that we have in this world—it was also a measure of the brazen collapse of our Constitution.

Is there a political system where one man decides the fate of another civilization? Is that how the American system works? Of course the answer is no. The founding fathers who rebelled against a mad King George III were very explicit in the Declaration of Independence, celebrated this year 250 years after its issuance. We’re in the 250th anniversary, one that Trump says is about our freedom. It was explicitly that King George arrogated, took on the authority to put the military above civil rule. And when the founding fathers wrote the US Constitution, they assigned specifically the power to declare war not to the commander-in-chief, but solely and exclusively—and not by choice, not if they care about it or want to or want to delegate it or not, but solely—to the United States Congress.

And Trump said yesterday he doesn’t care what the public thinks. He doesn’t care what the vote is. He says it doesn’t even cross my mind. And he said earlier this year, when he was asked, well, are there any limits on your power? He thought about it. He said Yes, my morality, but it’s my will. It’s what I want to do. Otherwise, no, there are no other limits.

What did our Congress do on that occasion? I can tell you, as we know, that the majority party in both houses simply remained silent. That is a violation of their sacred oath of office, which is to uphold the Constitution. Trump yesterday said he’s going to have the difficult choice of whether to annihilate, by the way, one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, 5,000 years old, twenty times older than the United States of America. And what did our Speaker of the House say? Well, he said nothing, of course. What did our Senate majority leader say? He said, of course, nothing. What did all of the party of the president of the United States say, the members of Congress? They said, of course, nothing. This is worse than the Roman Empire. There was a Senate that actually still said something. Our Senate says nothing.

We are so broken that not only do we have a madman in power, but there is no respect for our constitutional order. And the president can make statements as he made yesterday, unprecedented in the chamber of the General Assembly in front of the world leaders, speaking like the worst tyrant or gangster imaginable, and not a murmur from the Republican Party which dominates the House and the Senate. You know, I am not partisan. And a Democratic president who dared to be as absolutely mad and deranged as this president would probably find subservience in that party too. So I’m not even making a partisan point. I’m making a point about the collapse of our constitutional order.

Have we come to a point where one man, who I happen to think is utterly incompetent, utterly sociopathic, actually—when people are killed under his order, not a moment of reflection or remorse when 150 schoolgirls are murdered, and he knows the truth. He says, yeah, the Iranians probably did it. We’ll find out. No, not any control at all in our system of government.

So for me, you asked how I feel. I shudder at the last 24 hours, both at what the president said. It made my skin crawl. I was sitting there in the chamber listening to this madness. I mean it really, psychopathic madness, speaking in this way, with a vulgarity that is unimaginable. But then I’ve shuddered since then at the lack of response by the leaders, the majority leader of the US Senate, the Speaker of the House, Supreme Court justices, anybody to say no. In our system of government, it’s not one person who decides on the fate of another civilization.

We are a country, we say, first of all, of representation, and the American people are aghast at this. They oppose it overwhelmingly. They do not support this war of Netanyahu and Trump, which is a two-person war of murder and destruction and assassination of leaders of another country. They do not support it. And the constitutional order is that we are a representative government, and our representatives have an oath of office that only they can declare war. So where are they standing up to say No, you don’t have a penny to spend on this? We control the power of the purse. The tens or hundreds of billions of dollars that Trump has wasted of American income in this flagrant war of whim. Where is Congress to say you have no authority whatsoever to spend that because only we can decide on the spending and only we can declare war.

So this is the grim fact. It wasn’t just the awful statements. That was my first reaction. But then I thought, what have we come to when one person can make a statement like this and then remain essentially unchallenged in the United States system of government?”

Annihilation is not diplomacy. Congressional silence is not restraint. A constitutional republic cannot survive if one man claims the power to decide whether another civilization lives or dies.

[Spin Time Labs @SpinTimeLabs]

"...L’associazione genitori dell’Istituto Comprensivo, sottolinea che l’abbandono scolastico dei bimbi provenienti dallo stabile ex occupato era pari a zero..."

https://t.co/OhYaYn6fkf

[gabriella raggi @gabriraggi]

@elfow8wn @EleonoraCamilli @Radio3tweet Anche le cattoliche entrano in chiesa con il velo. Per non citare le suore, di qualsiasi ordine, anche le sorelle laiche. Ci vuole rispetto.

[gabriella raggi @gabriraggi]

il diritto all'abitare... qualche volta finisce bene https://t.co/umkd1UjTCr

[gabriella raggi @gabriraggi]

@SMaurizi si

[gabriella raggi @gabriraggi]

@CucchiRiccardo Arabia Saudita non è nella Nato. Non è stato informato il Parlamento. ha ragione @orsiniufficiale. Italia stato satellite

[gabriella raggi @gabriraggi]

@AlRobecchi @Marco_Bello1 certo quelli che hanno disertato

[gabriella raggi @gabriraggi]

"l'open source non è solo una preferenza tecnica. È un freno al potere concentrato. Offre uno dei modi più chiari per impedire che l'AI diventi, di fatto, una tecnologia controllata da un piccolo numero di attori privilegiati."

[China Xinhua News @XHNews]

An open letter from a #DeepSeek engineer has gone viral.
It begins as a reflection on what it means to write code in the age of increasingly capable #AI agents. But it ends with something closer to an alarm: What happens if one of the most powerful technologies ever built comes to be controlled by a handful of elites?
This, the engineer wrote, is not the future he is building toward. It should not be one the rest of us accept, either.
Just last weekend, several of the industry's leading #US firms, including #OpenAI and #Anthropic, called for a slowdown in the AI race. But coming from the front-runners, those calls ring hollow. The world is not safer when those already in the lead decide how fast everyone else is allowed to run.
As the competition intensifies, the #AGI, or artificial general intelligence, has become a "holy grail" for a small group of deep-pocketed companies, each convinced that whoever gets there first will call the shots. Much of that race, meanwhile, is still unfolding inside black boxes.
That should trouble us.
If artificial intelligence is going to remake how we work, how we learn and how societies function, then access to it cannot be the privilege of a few, however well-intentioned they claim to be.
Seen in this light, open source is not merely a technical preference. It is a check on concentrated power. It offers one of the clearest ways to prevent AI from becoming, in effect, a technology controlled by a small number of privileged actors.

[gabriella raggi @gabriraggi]

"conquistare gli altri attraverso il "potere del nostro esempio", piuttosto che "l'esempio del nostro potere". 👇

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

I strongly encourage everyone to read the speech that Chan Chun Sing, Singapore's Defence Minister, just gave in Beijing: it's basically the polar opposite of a Hegseth speech - immensely wise and a refreshing proof that thoughtful statecraft still exists.

You can find the speech here: https://t.co/alGUQGK7J4 Below a summary of the best parts of the speech, in my opinion.

Much of the speech addresses the crucial question of the so-called "security dilemma", a key concept in international relations theory whereby one country's efforts to make itself safer almost inevitably make others feel less safe, triggering a spiral where everyone ends up more insecure.

As Chan Chun Sing puts it in his speech: "The true test of statecraft is this: how do we strengthen our own security without weakening the security of others, or without aggravating the insecurity of others?"

He says there are "three fundamental principles worth bearing in mind" in this regard, but that, first and foremost, it raises the question of "what 'winning' means": to him, defining "winning" as "outgunning or outlasting a rival" isn't sensible, it ought to be defined as winning others through the "power of our example", rather than "the example of our power."

It's extremely wise, when you think about it: do you actually "win" if you submit others by force, or do you merely prove that, for now, they simply lack the strength to resist? You've imposed your will, yes, but the principle you've imposed is that the strongest gets his way, and strength is expensive and it wanes.

Chan Chun Sing quotes Mencius, the classic Chinese philosopher, to illustrate this: "Power may compel others to comply. But in the end, it is trust that truly wins others over" (which is a trimmed version of the true original citation: "Those who subdue others by force do not win their hearts; they submit only because their own strength falls short. Those who subdue others by virtue win hearts that are glad and sincerely submissive, as the seventy disciples submitted to Confucius," 以力服人者，非心服也，力不赡也；以德服人者，中心悦而诚服也，如七十子之服孔子也。)

This is very core to Chinese strategic thinking (yes, Chan Chun Sing, as are most Singaporean leaders, is ethnically Chinese): the notion that legitimacy, not force, is the real currency of power.

A state that has to coerce is following the "hegemonic way" (badao, 霸道) - which is brittle and unsustainable. The only sustainable long-term way to lead is the so-called "kingly way" (wangdao, 王道), where others follow you and emulate you voluntarily. Two concepts which incidentally come from Mencius too: "he who uses force while borrowing the name of benevolence is a hegemon (ba); he who practises benevolence through virtue is a true king (wang)."

Concretely, Chan Chun Sing say that states should pursue the following 3 principles to apply this in practice.

First of all, he points out that too many states "externalise domestic issues" as opposed to putting their own house in order. The idea being that a leadership confident at home doesn't need foreign enemies to hold itself together, and can therefore act in its "enlightened long-term interest" abroad. Whereby an insecure one uses foreign policy "for political gain."

No prizes for guessing what country he is referring to here...

The second principle is that "interdependence breeds stability" as opposed to being "a source of vulnerability."

Which makes sense: mutual exposure turns competitors into stakeholders in each other's stability. Cut exposure in the name of "resilience" or "de-risking" and, really, the only thing you've achieved is to make confrontation and conflict cheaper.

Lastly, and this is perhaps the most important principle: "first, do no harm."

Chan Chun Sing again quotes famous Chinese sayings: "turn big problems into small ones, and small ones into nothing" (大事化小，小事化了), which is what happens when there's trust between states, versus "turn small problems into big ones, and make trouble out of nothing" (小事化大，无事生非), which is what happens when there isn't.

The idea is that every unnecessary provocation, every "freedom of navigation" stunt, every gratuitous sanction is a withdrawal from a trust account that is very expensive to fill and, as he says, can be emptied "in a single instant."

Chan Chun Sing ends his speech on what being a “responsible major country” - a key concept in contemporary Chinese international relations - means, and how, "the more responsible major powers are, the less concerned small countries will be."

Besides the above three fundamental principles, he says that "strategic patience" is also crucial, defined as: "Not every capability needs to be advertised; not every advantage needs to be immediately pressed; and not every provocation demands an immediate response."

In other words, true confidence doesn't need to prove itself and restraint is a form of strength: a great power that feels compelled to respond to everything is, in effect, letting its rivals set its agenda. And whoever needs to constantly show force is in fact projecting its own fear that without the show, nobody would believe it.

As Margaret Thatcher once brilliantly put it (I hate to quote her but this is too good): "Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."

That's it, if you want the rest, I truly encourage you to read the full speech: pure undistilled wisdom, from a man who runs the defence of a country smaller than Los Angeles and obviously understands power far better than the man in charge of the largest military on earth. Which is its own form of tragedy.

[Megatron @Megatron_ron]

BREAKING: 🇺🇸🇺🇳🇮🇷 The UN has officially accused the United States of committing war CRIMES in Iran

They claim they have found “reasonable grounds” to believe the United States committed war crimes in two strikes in Iran where many children were killed

[Shay @OfficineXShay]

🎬 CITIZEN OSAMA

Venezia 83, candidato dalla Palestina agli Oscar 2027.

In diretta da Gaza, con noi, il regista
Ahmed Hassouna
@peaceyaman

Con Federica D'alessio
@federdale @kritica_news

23 settembre h 21.30
In diretta su X
OfficineX (@OfficineXShay)
Link nei commenti

[Lorenzo Kamel @lorenzokamel]

La segretaria nazionale dei Giovani Democratici, Virginia Libero: “Non saremo noi i soldati delle vostre guerre".
La parte sana di questo Paese ha capito. Come lo capirono i partigiani, che scelsero la disobbedienza di fronte a chi vendeva morte.
https://t.co/sEQpweZX5d

[Gaza Notifications @gazanotice]

🚨HORRIFIC : The terrifying reality of life in Gaza.
Israeli quadcopters hover over civilians in Gaza City’s Tuffah neighborhood, near the Yellow Line, descending at times to low altitudes to surveil and film civilians. They can also open fire or detonate explosives without warning.