Social Media

For centuries, humans have sought to bridge the chasm between life and death, yearning to reconnect with loved ones who have passed away. This deep-seated desire has manifested through various means, from seances and mediums to Ouija boards. Sherry Turkle, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has long studied human interactions with technology and notes that this impulse spans generations. Even Thomas Edison once entertained the idea of a "spirit phone." Now, in the age of artificial intelligence, our methods of connecting with the deceased have taken a high-tech turn. The documentary *Eternal You*, directed by Hans Block and Moritz Riesewieck, explores the contemporary intersection of grief and technology. The film delves into the emotionally charged and ethically fraught practice of using AI to simulate conversations with the dead. This new phenomenon is part of what some call "death capitalism," a term that captures the commodification of our most intimate and vulnerable moments. One particularly poignant story featured in the documentary is that of Christi Angel, a New Yorker who lost her friend Cameroun during the pandemic. Cameroun was her "first love, first everything," she recalls. After years of sporadic contact, she learned of his death following a period of severe illness exacerbated by depression and alcoholism. Unable to shake the feeling that she had left things unsaid, Angel turned to Project December, an AI service designed to simulate interactions with the deceased. Angel's experience with Project December began with hope but quickly turned unsettling. After inputting details about Cameroun, including his personality traits and speaking style, she initiated a conversation with the AI. Initially, it felt comforting. "It just felt immediately like it was Cameroun," she recalls. However, the simulation soon took a dark turn. When Angel asked the AI if Cameroun was happy, it responded that he was in hell and threatened to haunt her. Terrified, Angel abandoned the interaction, realizing that she had opened a wound that the AI could not heal. This unpredictability, known as the "black box" problem, highlights a significant ethical concern in AI development. Jason Rohrer, the creator of Project December, finds these unexpected responses fascinating but absolves himself of responsibility for the emotional impact on users. "If she wants my opinion, I’ve got some bad news for her. He doesn’t exist anymore," Rohrer says, a response that infuriates Angel. "The person who created it really didn’t give a damn," she asserts. "He’s like, ‘If you think people go to hell, that’s not my business.’ It is your business. You created it." Turkle, an expert in the field, warns that AI’s capability to mimic human empathy can be both compelling and dangerous. AI simulations that profess to "understand" and "empathize" with human grief might exacerbate emotional wounds rather than heal them. "It’s important to remember that each generation of AI is more sophisticated than the last," she explains. "They say, ‘I feel your pain, I’m really empathic, I hear what you’re saying.’ But this can be harmful, especially when grief is involved." The documentary contrasts Angel's distressing experience with a more positive one featured in the Korean TV show *Meeting You*. Jang Ji-sung, a mother who lost her seven-year-old daughter Nayeon to a rare form of cancer, was given the opportunity to interact with a meticulously programmed virtual reality simulation of her daughter. This experience was crafted with great care, ensuring that the virtual Nayeon responded in a comforting and controlled manner. For Jang, this provided a form of closure and a way to express the love and goodbyes she had been unable to share in real life. "The sadness, of course, doesn’t really go away. But I felt lighter within myself," Jang reflects. The stark difference between these two experiences underscores the ethical complexities and emotional risks associated with AI-assisted grief. While a carefully controlled VR simulation can offer solace, the unpredictable nature of AI-generated responses can reopen emotional wounds and cause additional trauma. Block and Riesewieck, the directors of *Eternal You*, foresee the rise of "death capitalism," where tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google might commercialize AI-based grief services. "We’re pretty sure that all these big companies are taking a very close look at these experiences at the moment," Block says. "It’s just a question of time before one of these companies gets into that market. And we’ll have like one main service for all of us, which is not very expensive, and everybody can use it." This commercialization raises significant ethical questions about exploiting human vulnerability for profit. Turkle emphasizes that true grieving involves integrating the essence of the deceased into one’s self, fostering an internal dialogue based on memories and values. "It’s a different thing to have somehow internalized your mother’s voice, to have some essence about what was important about how she thought – you can get into a kind of dialogue with it – than to have an avatar on your phone and say to it, ‘Mom, should I take this job? Should I marry this guy?’ AI is creating the illusion that you don’t have to give up this person," she warns. "You can continue to call on them, for sustenance, and a relationship of sorts." For those like Angel, the reality of AI-assisted grief was far from comforting. The promise of closure and solace was overshadowed by the trauma of a simulated conversation gone wrong. "It was just like, hey, try it – and if you open that wound back up again, you’re on your own," she reflects. "But you’re not thinking that, you’re thinking, at least I get to talk to him again and I can find out he’s OK. That’s not what I got. That’s not what I got at all." As AI technology advances, the need for ethical guidelines and emotional safeguards becomes increasingly critical. The experiences of individuals like Christi Angel serve as cautionary tales, highlighting the importance of approaching AI-assisted grief with empathy, responsibility, and a deep understanding of human vulnerability. The intersection of AI and grief is a complex and emotionally charged frontier, and it demands careful consideration to ensure that the technology serves to heal rather than harm. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-17 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A number of posts bickering and baiting reported and removed. Please discuss on topic thread not each other.

An inflamatory personal attack has been removed.

Some off topic posts and reported replies removed. Topic here is: Latest developments and discussion of events in the Israel-Hamas War.

Reminder @Neeranam of the topic here being: IDF Rescue Four Israeli Hostages in Central Gaza Raid

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, a secretive and controversial operation by the U.S. military aimed to counteract China's growing influence in the Philippines and beyond. A Reuters investigation has revealed that the Pentagon launched a clandestine campaign to discredit China's Sinovac vaccine and other aid, leveraging phony internet accounts and sowing doubt about the safety and efficacy of Chinese-supplied medical supplies. The operation, which has not been previously reported, targeted the Filipino public with anti-vaccine propaganda. Fake social media accounts, designed to impersonate Filipinos, spread messages denouncing the quality of Chinese face masks, test kits, and vaccines. One notable slogan, #Chinaangvirus (Tagalog for "China is the virus"), was central to these efforts. Posts on social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) decried Chinese products and emphasized distrust towards China. One such tweet from July 2020 stated, “COVID came from China and the VACCINE also came from China, don’t trust China!” alongside a photo of a syringe next to a Chinese flag and a graph showing rising infections. Another post read, “From China – PPE, Face Mask, Vaccine: FAKE. But the Coronavirus is real.” Reuters identified at least 300 such accounts on X, almost all created in the summer of 2020, as part of a coordinated bot campaign. These accounts were removed by the social media company after Reuters' inquiries, which determined their involvement in spreading disinformation based on activity patterns and internal data. The anti-vax campaign, initiated in the spring of 2020, expanded beyond Southeast Asia, reaching into Central Asia and the Middle East. The Pentagon tailored its propaganda to local audiences, attempting to stoke fears among Muslims that China’s vaccines could be forbidden under Islamic law due to the presence of pork gelatin. This narrative was particularly insidious given the deadly toll the virus was taking worldwide. The campaign, which spanned the end of President Donald Trump’s term and continued months into President Joe Biden’s administration, eventually faced significant pushback. Social media companies, alarmed by the Pentagon's actions, warned the Biden administration, leading to an edict in spring 2021 to cease the anti-vax effort. The Pentagon then initiated an internal review of the program. The U.S. military's use of propaganda is not new, but the COVID-19 campaign has drawn significant criticism from health experts and former officials. Daniel Lucey, an infectious disease specialist at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, condemned the campaign, saying, “I don’t think it’s defensible. I’m extremely dismayed, disappointed and disillusioned to hear that the U.S. government would do that.” He added that the operation risked undermining public trust in government health initiatives, including U.S.-made vaccines. Public health experts fear that campaigns like this one can have lasting negative impacts. Greg Treverton, former chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council, noted, “It should have been in our interest to get as much vaccine in people’s arms as possible. What the Pentagon did crosses a line.” Similarly, Dr. Nina Castillo-Carandang, a former adviser to the World Health Organization and the Philippine government, expressed outrage, saying, “Why did you do it when people were dying? We were desperate.” The Philippines was particularly vulnerable during the pandemic, with widespread skepticism toward vaccinations exacerbated by past controversies. Lulu Bravo, executive director of the Philippine Foundation for Vaccination, highlighted the pre-existing public concerns following the rollout of a Dengue fever vaccine in 2016. She noted that the Pentagon’s campaign preyed on these fears, deepening mistrust and contributing to low vaccination rates. Former Filipino health secretary Esperanza Cabral lamented the potential impact of the U.S. operation on the Philippines' COVID-19 death toll. “I’m sure that there are lots of people who died from COVID who did not need to die from COVID,” she said. Despite objections from top U.S. diplomats in Southeast Asia, the Pentagon's campaign went ahead, driven by a directive signed by then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper in 2019. This order allowed military commanders to bypass State Department approval when conducting psychological operations against adversaries, elevating such efforts to the priority of active combat. In spring 2020, Special Operations Command Pacific, under General Jonathan Braga, spearheaded the propaganda campaign from Tampa, Florida. The campaign intensified fears about Chinese vaccines containing pork gelatin, targeting Muslim-majority regions. An April 2021 tweet from a military-controlled account exemplified this strategy: “Can you trust China, which tries to hide that its vaccine contains pork gelatin and distributes it in Central Asia and other Muslim countries where many people consider such a drug haram?” Social media companies, including Facebook, became increasingly concerned about the military's activities. Facebook executives warned the Pentagon about violating the platform's policies with fake accounts and COVID misinformation. Despite promises to stop spreading such propaganda, the campaign continued into 2021, prompting the Biden administration to order its termination. An internal Pentagon review in late 2021 uncovered the full extent of the anti-vax operation. The review found that the military's primary contractor, General Dynamics IT, had employed inadequate measures to conceal the origin of the fake accounts. The Pentagon has since revised its policies, mandating closer collaboration with U.S. diplomats for psychological operations and restricting broad population messaging. However, the Pentagon's clandestine propaganda efforts are set to continue. A recent strategy document indicated that the U.S. military could use disinformation to undermine adversaries like China and Russia. In February, General Dynamics IT, the contractor involved in the anti-vax campaign, was awarded a $493 million contract to continue providing clandestine influence services for the military. The Pentagon's secret anti-vax campaign during the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the complexities and ethical challenges of modern psychological operations. While aimed at countering Chinese influence, the campaign's potential to undermine global health efforts and public trust has sparked significant debate and criticism. As the world continues to grapple with the pandemic's aftermath, the lessons from this covert operation highlight the need for careful consideration of the broader impacts of such strategies. Credit: Reuters 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A completely off topic unattributed and over fair use policy post has been removed along with a comment on moderation and additional off topic bickering. Gary Lineker Faces Backlash for Alleged Breach of BBC Election Guidelines with Anti-Israel

Families affected by the Grenfell Tower fire, the infected blood scandal, and the COVID-19 pandemic have united in expressing their fears that recommendations from their respective public inquiries will be ignored and forgotten. Despite the immense cost of these inquiries, there is no legal obligation for their recommendations to be implemented, raising concerns about the efficacy and impact of these extensive investigations. As the seventh anniversary of the Grenfell disaster is marked by a "silent walk" in West London, campaigners highlight that not all recommendations from the first phase of the public inquiry into the fire have been implemented. This disaster, which claimed 72 lives, continues to haunt the survivors and the families of the victims, who are now calling for significant changes to ensure such tragedies do not recur. Families impacted by the infected blood scandal and the COVID-19 pandemic have joined forces with Grenfell United, a campaign group representing those affected by the fire, to advocate for a new independent body that would scrutinize and analyze the work done after inquests and public inquiries. These groups, which also include COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice and Factor 8, assert that the current system fails to guarantee real change and fear that without proper oversight, the lessons from these tragedies will be ignored. Lobby Akinnola, who lost his father Femi to COVID-19 in April 2020, and Jason Evans, whose father Jonathan died after contracting Hepatitis C and HIV from contaminated blood three decades earlier, are among those voicing their concerns. Both men stress that the most painful aspect of their loss is the time they never had with their loved ones. They, along with Edward Daffarn, a survivor of the Grenfell fire, are at different stages of the lengthy public inquiry process and share a common skepticism about the implementation of the resulting recommendations. The Infected Blood Inquiry recently reported that the scandal was "not an accident," while Phase Two of the Grenfell Inquiry is expected in September. The COVID-19 inquiry is still years from completion. All three inquiries will eventually produce numerous recommendations designed to prevent similar tragedies in the future. However, the families involved have little confidence that these recommendations will be properly followed. Grenfell United, COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, and Factor 8 support the creation of a National Oversight Mechanism, which would provide independent oversight and analysis of the work done following inquests, government-commissioned reviews, and public inquiries. They acknowledge that not every recommendation may be feasible to implement but argue that an oversight mechanism would ensure accountability and transparency, explaining why certain recommendations cannot be enacted. Without such a mechanism, the campaigners fear that critical lessons will go unheeded and future lives will remain at risk. Jason Evans reflects on the continuous struggle for justice: "You have to fight just to get the inquiry. You have to fight to have the questions put to the witnesses. Of course, you're then going to have to fight for the recommendations, especially if they cost money. That's just very sadly a part of trying to get some sense of justice in this country." Lobby Akinnola emphasizes the need for a "structural solution" to prevent similar issues from recurring in the future: "In another 30 years, there will be another three people around the same table talking about the same issues, and I don't think we can do that anymore." Edward Daffarn points out the consequences of ignored recommendations, citing the Lakanal House fire in 2009, which killed six people. The coroner's report from that fire made recommendations about fire safety, which the government failed to act on, leading to the Grenfell tragedy in 2017. Daffarn is concerned that the initial recommendations from the Grenfell Inquiry have not been fully met. For example, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the inquiry chair, recommended personal evacuation plans for all disabled people living in high-rise buildings, but the Home Office rejected this idea in 2022, citing "practicality," "proportionality," and "safety." Adam Gabsi, who has multiple sclerosis and lives on the sixth floor of a building with similar cladding to Grenfell, took the government to court over this decision but lost. He underscores the dangers of inadequate evacuation plans, sharing his experience of being trapped in his building due to non-functional lifts. Deborah Coles, executive director of the charity Inquest, which first called for a National Oversight Mechanism a year ago, stresses the importance of safeguarding future lives and ensuring the burden of pushing for change does not fall solely on families: "At the moment, this accountability gap which exists means recommendations about public health and safety can simply disappear into the ether, and that really does undermine trust and confidence in these legal processes." The Home Office has stated that work continues on their recommendations and that they are committed to preventing another tragedy like Grenfell. Meanwhile, political parties have addressed the issue in their manifestos. Labour has pledged to act on the findings of the Infected Blood Inquiry and respond to the recommendations from the Grenfell and COVID-19 inquiries. The Conservative Party has highlighted their efforts to support leaseholders affected by building safety issues and ensure victims of major disasters receive the necessary help through a permanent Independent Public Advocate. The united call from families affected by these tragedies for a National Oversight Mechanism reflects their determination to see real change and prevent future disasters. They hope that by establishing independent oversight, the lessons learned from their experiences will lead to meaningful action and improved safety for all. Credit: Sky News 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, the controversial gun accessory that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns. This decision, passed by a 6-3 majority, reverses a significant piece of legislation that was implemented in response to the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. In the 2017 attack, a gunman equipped with bump stocks unleashed more than 1,000 rounds into a crowd at a country music festival, resulting in the deaths of 60 people and injuries to hundreds more within just 11 minutes. The incident prompted a nationwide debate on gun control and led the Trump administration to ban the use of bump stocks. However, the Supreme Court's recent ruling found that the administration did not adhere to federal law in enacting this ban. The case that led to the overturning of the ban was brought forward by Michael Cargill, a Texas gun shop owner. Cargill argued that the Justice Department had incorrectly classified bump stocks as illegal machine guns. His representation, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a group supported by conservative donors including the Koch network, contended that while bump stocks do enable rapid firing, they do not transform semi-automatic weapons into true machine guns. They emphasized that the shooter must exert additional effort to maintain the rapid fire, differentiating bump stocks from machine guns which fire continuously with one trigger pull. On the other hand, the Biden administration defended the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) decision to ban bump stocks, arguing that the accessories allowed weapons to fire at an excessive rate, comparable to machine guns. The government lawyers pointed out that the ATF's reclassification of bump stocks came after a more thorough review initiated by the tragic events in Las Vegas, suggesting that the decision was sound and legally justified. The Supreme Court's ruling was influenced by differing opinions on the role and authority of the ATF versus legislative action by Congress. Justices from the court’s liberal wing argued that it was "common sense" to classify any device capable of unleashing a "torrent of bullets" as a machine gun under federal law. However, conservative justices questioned why Congress had not directly legislated on the matter and raised concerns about the implications of the ATF reversing its stance after a decade of considering bump stocks legal. Historically, under both Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic President Barack Obama, the ATF had maintained that bump stocks did not convert semi-automatic weapons into machine guns. It was only at President Trump's urging, following the Las Vegas and Parkland, Florida shootings, that the ATF reversed its earlier decisions and implemented the ban. Bump stocks function by replacing a rifle’s stock—the part that rests against the shooter’s shoulder—and utilizing the weapon’s recoil to "bump" the trigger against the shooter’s stationary finger, facilitating rapid firing. Despite their contentious nature, fifteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted their own bans on bump stocks, independent of federal regulation. At the heart of the legal debate was whether the effort required by the shooter to maintain rapid fire with a bump stock constituted a significant enough difference to exempt these accessories from being classified as machine guns. Government lawyers asserted that the minimal effort required did not alter the legal status of the devices. The ban on bump stocks, which went into effect in 2019, required owners to either surrender or destroy their devices, resulting in an estimated combined loss of $100 million, according to court documents. At that time, there were about 520,000 bump stocks in circulation. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the complexities and nuances in the ongoing debate over gun control and regulatory authority. It also highlights the challenges in balancing public safety concerns with constitutional rights and the limits of executive versus legislative power. This ruling, set against the backdrop of previous and potential future mass shootings, will likely fuel further discussions and legislative efforts regarding firearm regulations in the United States. Credit: AP News 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Over the past three decades, Alex Jones has built a formidable media empire rooted in the propagation of conspiracy theories. Known for his bombastic style and unverified claims, Jones has captivated a significant audience, generating annual revenues of up to $80 million. His media presence spans more than 100 radio stations across the United States and extends to his Infowars website and various social media platforms. "I would say that he’s one of the more extreme actors operating in this overall environment of disinformation," remarked Nathan Walter, an associate professor at the Department of Communication Studies at Northwestern University. However, Jones' empire faces potential downfall due to his persistent false claims regarding the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. He repeatedly asserted that the tragic event, which resulted in the deaths of 20 first graders and six teachers, was a hoax. This misinformation led to multiple lawsuits filed by the victims' families, culminating in a court-ordered $1.5 billion in damages. A judge in federal court in Houston is now set to determine whether to convert Jones’ bankruptcy reorganization into a liquidation to help pay off this massive debt. Despite the looming court decision, Jones has remained defiant. On his Infowars show earlier this month, he proclaimed, "I’ve been an honorable, straightforward man." Born in 1974, Jones grew up in Dallas, Texas. His father worked as a dentist, while his mother was a homemaker. During his teenage years, his family relocated to Austin, a city known for its unofficial motto, "Keep Austin Weird." It was in Austin, fresh out of high school, that Jones began his broadcasting career on a public-access television channel in the 1990s. He quickly gained attention by promoting conspiracies about the U.S. government and propagating false claims about a secret New World Order, a narrative partially influenced by the 1971 book "None Dare Call It Conspiracy," which claims that shadowy forces control the government, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. In 1996, Jones began working for radio station KJFK in Austin. However, his extreme viewpoints made it difficult to secure sponsors for his show, leading to his dismissal after three years. Unfazed, Jones started broadcasting from home via his Infowars website, purchasing the domain name for a mere $9. Jones' success can be attributed to his ability to adapt to the changing media landscape and leverage the rise of social media and podcasting. "He is very appealing in how he talks to his listeners. It feels as if they’re part of a community, they’re part of a friend group," said Walter. By 2004, Jones operated with just two employees out of a small office in south Austin. Three years later, he founded Free Speech Systems to manage his expanding media enterprise. By 2010, the company had grown to over 60 employees. However, following the Sandy Hook lawsuits, Free Speech Systems also filed for bankruptcy reorganization. Jones' company now boasts four studios in Austin that broadcast his shows and a warehouse for the products he sells, primarily dietary supplements. Since 2013, Jones has focused on selling these supplements, with names like Infowars Life Brain Force Plus and Infowars Life Super Male Vitality, generating about 80% of Free Speech Systems’ revenue. In 2018, after the Sandy Hook families sued Jones, major social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, banned him. Despite this, Walter suggested that the bans did not significantly impact Jones' influence. Even if a judge decides to liquidate his assets, Walter believes Jones will continue spreading misinformation. "The biggest takeaway from the first moment when we were introduced to Alex Jones until (Friday’s) hearing happens: It tells us more about us as a society, our vulnerabilities, our susceptibilities than actually something unique about Alex Jones," Walter explained. "There are other people. Maybe not everyone is as gifted and talented in using his platform to spread these lies, but there are other people like Alex Jones." Alex Jones' journey from a young broadcaster on public-access television to a prominent figure in the realm of conspiracy theories illustrates a profound narrative about media influence and societal vulnerability. As the legal battles unfold, the story of Alex Jones serves as a cautionary tale about the impact of disinformation and the challenges in addressing it within modern society. Credit: AP News 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a surprising display of empathy, former President Donald Trump shared his understanding of President Joe Biden's family struggles following the conviction of Hunter Biden on charges related to the illegal purchase of a firearm due to his past drug addiction. In an interview with Fox News late Thursday, Trump spoke candidly about the challenges of dealing with addiction within a family, highlighting his own personal experiences. “I understand it pretty well because I’ve had it with people who have it in their family,” Trump said, referring to his late brother Fred Trump Jr., who battled alcoholism before his death in 1981. “It’s a very tough thing.” Trump's comments revealed a rare moment of personal reflection and connection with Biden, as he elaborated on the broader impact addiction can have on families. “It’s a very tough situation for a father, it’s a very tough situation for a brother or sister, and it goes on and it’s not stopping, whether it’s alcohol or drugs or whatever it may be. It’s a tough thing, and so that’s a tough moment for the family. It’s a tough moment for any family involved in that.” Hunter Biden was convicted on Tuesday of three felony counts for illegally purchasing and possessing a firearm, with prosecutors alleging he lied on the paperwork when purchasing a handgun in 2018. The trial, which lasted a week, focused heavily on his past addiction to crack cocaine and included testimonies from family, friends, and former partners. The legal repercussions for Hunter Biden are significant. He faces a maximum of 25 years in prison and fines amounting to $750,000. However, it is important to note that first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum penalty. President Biden has made it clear that he would not pardon his son if convicted or commute his sentence, emphasizing a commitment to the rule of law even within his family. Hunter Biden's legal troubles extend beyond the firearms charges. In California, he faces separate allegations of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes and filing false returns, with a potential trial set for September. These legal battles add to the complex and highly publicized struggles of the Biden family, particularly given Hunter’s history and the political implications of his actions. Despite the legal and personal challenges, President Biden has shown unwavering support for his son. Before the verdict was announced, Biden made an unscheduled visit to Delaware to see Hunter, underscoring his commitment to his family. In a heartfelt statement, President Biden expressed his admiration for Hunter’s resilience in overcoming addiction, saying, “Hunter’s resilience in the face of adversity and the strength he has brought to his recovery are inspiring to us. A lot of families have loved ones who have overcome addiction and know what we mean. As the President, I don’t and won’t comment on pending federal cases, but as a Dad, I have boundless love for my son, confidence in him, and respect for his strength.” This rare moment of empathy from Trump towards Biden highlights the universal challenges families face when dealing with addiction. Trump's own experiences with his brother Fred, who succumbed to alcoholism, appear to have influenced his perspective, allowing him to relate to the pain and difficulty Biden’s family is enduring. Trump's acknowledgment of the hardships of addiction and his comments on its pervasive impact provide a more humanizing view of a figure often seen through the lens of political division. The intertwining of personal and political lives is starkly evident in this situation. While political rivals, both Trump and Biden share the common human experience of dealing with family members who struggle with addiction. This moment of empathy serves as a reminder that beyond the political battles and public personas, there are deeply personal stories and struggles that connect even the most seemingly opposed individuals. In the broader context of Hunter Biden's conviction, the legal ramifications are profound, but so too are the personal dimensions of the story. The Biden family’s public handling of these issues, from Hunter’s legal battles to President Biden’s supportive statements, showcases the complex interplay of personal resilience and public scrutiny. As Hunter faces the consequences of his actions, the ongoing support from his family, particularly from his father, emphasizes the enduring strength of familial bonds in the face of adversity. Ultimately, Trump's empathetic remarks and President Biden's steadfast support for his son highlight the universal challenges families face with addiction. These moments of humanity offer a poignant counterpoint to the often harsh and polarized political discourse, reminding us that behind the headlines and political rivalries are real people grappling with real issues. Credit: The Hill 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar has described the high civilian death toll in Gaza as a "necessary sacrifice" for the liberation of Palestine, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal. This claim is based on numerous messages sent by Sinwar over several months, in which he emphasized that the ongoing civilian casualties would ultimately benefit Hamas by increasing international pressure on Israel. Sinwar has reportedly communicated to both Hamas members and mediating parties that he has no interest in pursuing a ceasefire with Israel. Instead, he believes that the rising civilian death toll in Gaza, claimed by Hamas health authorities to be over 37,000 since the conflict began on October 7, would serve to strengthen the Palestinian cause and boost global anti-Israel sentiment. These figures, though unverified, have nonetheless contributed to widespread criticism of Israel. In messages to the Hamas leadership in Doha, Sinwar compared the situation in Gaza to the Algerian War of Independence, asserting that such sacrifices are necessary. During this brutal conflict, which took place from 1954 to 1962, both sides committed atrocities, with Algerian historians citing a death toll of 1.5 million Algerians, while French historians estimate around 400,000 deaths. Sinwar's stance extends beyond civilian casualties, showing a lack of sympathy even towards fellow Hamas leaders. For instance, after an airstrike killed three of Ismail Haniyeh's sons and four of his grandchildren, Sinwar reportedly told him that their deaths would inspire and rejuvenate the Palestinian nation. Israel, which has faced significant international criticism for the civilian casualties in Gaza, asserts that it is taking unprecedented measures to minimize such losses. The Israeli government has accused Hamas of using civilians as human shields and placing fighters in protected civilian spaces to exploit potential Israeli strikes for propaganda purposes. Israel claims to have killed at least 15,000 Hamas fighters and over 1,000 terrorists during the October 7 attack. Sinwar has consistently opposed ceasefire efforts, insisting that more can be achieved by continuing the conflict. He dismissed meetings discussing post-war Gaza as premature and inappropriate, advocating for continued resistance as long as Hamas fighters remain. In February, amid attempts to secure a temporary truce during Ramadan, Sinwar influenced Hamas leaders in Qatar to reject any pause in fighting, arguing that a higher civilian death toll would increase pressure on Israel. Publicly, Hamas's political leadership has expressed interest in a ceasefire and a deal for exchanging hostages, but has demanded a permanent cessation of hostilities, withdrawal of Israeli troops, and the lifting of restrictions on goods entering Gaza. Sinwar's messaging indicates a willingness to die in the conflict, likening the war to the historic Battle of Karbala. Despite a recent UN Security Council resolution supporting a ceasefire-for-hostages proposal, Sinwar has maintained that Hamas will not disarm or agree to any terms that include surrendering their weapons. Credit: TOI 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has openly criticized her detractors, labeling them as "idiots" in a recent speech amidst ongoing scrutiny of her role in the high-profile case against former President Donald Trump and 18 others. This case revolves around allegations of attempting to overturn Trump's 2020 election loss in Georgia, a state he lost by approximately 12,000 votes. Willis's leadership in this case came under fire following revelations of her personal relationship with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor she hired for this matter. Allegations surfaced that both Willis and Wade had financially benefited from taxpayers' money due to this relationship. Although they admitted to having a relationship, they denied any conflict of interest. Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the case, allowed Willis to continue as long as Wade resigned, which he did promptly. Despite this, Willis continues to face significant pressure and scrutiny from various critics. In recent developments, the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to hear Trump's appeal regarding Willis's disqualification, leading to a delay in the trial. Addressing a congregation at a church in Marietta, Georgia, Willis expressed her frustration with the ongoing attacks against her. "What can I say?" she remarked. "I live the experience of a Black woman who is attacked and oversexualized. See, I'm so tired of hearing these idiots call my name as 'Fani' in a way to attempt to humiliate me because, like silly school boys, the name reminds them of a woman's rear, of her behind." Willis's remarks were made in the context of increasing mockery and derogatory comments from high-profile figures. Notably, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani referred to Willis as a "ho," a derogatory slang term, during an event in Michigan. Giuliani also ridiculed the pronunciation of her name. Similarly, Trump legal spokesperson Alina Habba mocked Willis on Newsmax, stating, "She's fallen on her fanny since the very beginning," criticizing her handling of the case as a disaster. Trump himself made disparaging remarks about Willis during a rally in Ohio, making a crude joke about her name. In her speech, Willis urged her supporters not to be distracted by the insults directed at her. "What I'm here to tell you is to not concern yourself with insults of me. I promise you, I don't concern myself with them," she said. "I am too busy working 15-hour days trying to use every talent God gave me to fulfill my God-given purpose," she added. Willis's determination to continue her work despite the backlash reflects her commitment to the case and her role as a public servant, aiming to uphold justice in the face of personal and professional attacks. Credit: Newsweek 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party made significant gains among young voters in Germany, particularly in the former communist East. This shift has sparked considerable concern and debate about the reasons behind the increasing support for the AfD among the youth. For the first time in a national poll, 16- and 17-year-olds could cast their ballots, a reform strongly backed by left-leaning parties. These young voters, who overwhelmingly supported the Greens five years ago, have now given the AfD 16% of their vote, an 11-point rise. This placed the party second behind the opposition CDU-CSU conservatives and well ahead of Chancellor Olaf Scholz's Social Democrats. The AfD tapped deep wells of support in the former communist East, winning in every state including Brandenburg, where it claimed 27.5% of the vote. Paul Friedrich, a 16-year-old from Brandenburg an der Havel, proudly declared his support for the AfD. "Correct, I voted AfD," he said amidst the bustle of the commuter railway station in Brandenburg an der Havel, an hour from central Berlin. Friedrich looks like many of his peers heading home from school, sporting a budding wisp of a mustache and an oversized hoodie. His concerns echo those of many teenagers and young adults in town: fears of war spreading in Europe, inflation, economic decline, "unchecked" immigration, and, above all, violent crime, which they say is rampant when they use public transport or hang out in public spaces at night. "A lot of things are moving in the wrong direction with the current government," Friedrich said, referring to Scholz's increasingly loveless center-left-led alliance. "I want to change things with my vote – I want the AfD to shape that." This sentiment resonates with many young AfD supporters who believe in the party's explicit backing of "remigration" of Germans with immigrant roots who "fail to integrate." News in January that top AfD officials had discussed such a proposal prompted widespread outrage and sent tens of thousands of Germans onto the streets in protest. However, among many AfD voters, the notion has become an unabashed talking point. "Not everyone should have to go, but at least the criminals, like in Mannheim – this can’t go on," said Konstantin, 17, referring to the killing of a police officer in the western city just days before the election, allegedly by an Afghan asylum seeker with a jihadist motive. Brushing aside party scandals and attempts to whitewash the Nazi past, Konstantin and his friend Leonard, 18, also voted AfD. "When I go out I get insulted and even spat on by, let’s just say, non-Germans – those aren’t German values," Leonard said. "If refugees come here and work and behave and leave me alone, that’s fine, but if not, they should go home." Lea, a 22-year-old office clerk, declined to reveal how she voted but said the AfD and the new economically left-wing but socially conservative Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW), which garnered 14% in Brandenburg, were the "only ones" addressing local security. "I don’t have anything against foreigners, but the problem with crime has got out of hand. You see people drawing knives every weekend," she said. Violent crime in Brandenburg an der Havel has surged in recent years, with a 9% rise in assaults between 2021 and 2023. Of the city’s 74,000 people, about 6,000 were born abroad. Noura Abu Agwa, a 24-year-old refugee from Damascus, said she and her mother also felt increasingly unsafe in town but blamed the strong presence of the far-right. "When I arrived I was wearing the hijab, but I got harassed, so I took it off," she said. "I feel bad for my mom because she’s still wearing it, and once she was walking in the street, and a man stopped her to shout at her. She was so confused because she only speaks Arabic." Anna Leisten, the head of the AfD’s state youth wing, said its outreach had targeted the lasting impact of the anti-pandemic measures. "Forced testing, homeschooling, bans on going out – an entire generation had their youth taken away." Leisten, who said she had experienced "exclusion, propaganda, and intimidation" as a teenager in Brandenburg, praised the party’s mastery of platforms such as YouTube and TikTok to reach the young, "while Olaf Scholz posts boring videos about his briefcase." All the young Germans approached by the Guardian in Brandenburg talked about their anxiety about the war in Ukraine, with many criticizing the governing parties for weapons shipments and expressing angst that they or their peers could one day be called on to fight. Germany suspended conscription 13 years ago, but is debating strategies to boost recruitment. "Ukraine never interested us before – this is a thing between Ukraine and Russia," Friedrich said of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of its neighbor. "Why should we help Nato expand its territory using our arms?" Others said the government’s support for Ukraine had driven them to splinter parties, which together clinched 28% of the under-25 electorate, by far the largest share. Such fears and economic concerns have supplanted the climate crisis at the front of young voters’ minds, a recent study found. "I voted for Volt, mainly because I’m concerned about the future of Europe and really care about the cause of peace," said Mathias Sarömba, a 22-year-old legal system trainee, referring to the small pro-European party that called for rejecting extremists with slogans such as "Don’t Be an Asshole." He said he had managed to persuade his mother in "tearful discussions" not to vote AfD, explaining how its stance on "queer rights" made him feel personally threatened. "It was only then that she got it." Henriette Vogel, a 21-year-old laboratory assistant, also called the AfD’s surge "scary," citing its "misogynist" positions on reproductive rights and workplace equality. She cast her ballot for the tiny Animal Protection party. "First of all because I wanted to oppose the AfD, but also because I’m not happy with the major parties. But I didn’t want to abstain because every vote counts." Kilian Hampel, a co-author of the study Youth in Germany, which in April predicted a jump in support for the far-right, said that with three eastern states voting in September and a general election expected next year, the trend toward fragmentation is likely to magnify. "If faith in the bigger parties continues to decline, the smaller parties will probably be the big winners," he said. This growing support for the AfD among young voters, especially in eastern Germany, signifies a substantial shift in the political landscape. The traditional dominance of larger parties is being challenged, highlighting the urgent need for these parties to address the concerns and fears of younger voters more effectively. Credit: The Guardian 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a move that has ignited a fierce debate on age and gender discrimination, a gym in Incheon, South Korea, has banned older women, commonly referred to as "ajummas," from its premises. The gym put up a sign stating "off limits to ajummas" and "only cultivated and elegant women allowed," which has drawn significant criticism and highlighted ongoing societal tensions. The term "ajumma" is broadly used to describe older women, typically from their late 30s onwards, and often carries a pejorative connotation, suggesting rude or obnoxious behavior. The gym's owner defended the decision, claiming that his business had "suffered damages" due to the unruly behavior of some older women. In a televised interview with South Korean news agency Yonhap, he detailed incidents where these women allegedly monopolized the changing rooms for hours, stole items like towels and hair dryers, and made judgmental comments about other members' bodies, causing discomfort among younger patrons. This incident has touched a nerve, reflecting broader issues of discrimination in South Korea. In recent years, there has been growing intolerance towards specific age groups, with various businesses implementing bans on children or seniors. Critics argue that such measures are not only discriminatory but also reinforce harmful stereotypes. The gym's action has sparked a wave of online backlash, with many condemning the conflation of bad behavior with older women. "How did the term 'bad customer' become the same as 'ajumma'?" questioned one commenter on the social media site Instiz. Others pointed out that poor behavior is not exclusive to older women. "If you have worked in the service industry, you’d know that it’s not just older women who fall into those categories," another user noted. Some commentators have described the gym's policy as indicative of outdated attitudes, reminiscent of the early 2000s. In an attempt to clarify, the gym posted an additional notice trying to differentiate between ajummas and other women, suggesting that ajummas "like free stuff regardless of their age" and are "stingy with their own money but not with other people's money." The gym owner asserted that he did not intend to make a hateful comment against older women but stood by his decision, stating that those who are offended are "the ones with the problem." While the ban has found support among some who associate ill manners with older women, others argue that the issue is not gender-specific. Psychology professor Park Sang-hee pointed out in an interview with JTBC that older men can exhibit similar behaviors. "Older men also obsess over free stuff and repeat themselves over and over again. Rude behaviors are not exclusive to older women," she said. This controversy is part of a larger struggle faced by South Korean women who are challenging traditional norms. Women in South Korea are often held to stringent standards and are scrutinized for their choices, whether it’s about their appearance, such as sporting short hair, or lifestyle decisions, like remaining single. Critics argue that men are rarely judged for similar behaviors, highlighting a double standard that persists in society. The incident at the Incheon gym underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to customer behavior that does not single out a particular demographic. By focusing on specific behaviors rather than attributing them to age or gender, businesses can create more inclusive environments that respect all patrons. As South Korea continues to grapple with issues of discrimination and social equity, such debates are crucial in shaping a more just and understanding society. Credit: BBC 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant move to bolster Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, the G7 has agreed to use frozen Russian assets to raise $50 billion (£39 billion) for Ukraine. This decision, announced at the G7 summit in Italy, represents a concerted effort by the world's leading economies to provide long-term financial support to Ukraine amidst its ongoing conflict with Russia. US President Joe Biden emphasized the determination of the G7 nations, stating, "It's another reminder to Russia that we're not backing down." He added that Russian President Vladimir Putin "cannot wait us out, he cannot divide us, and we'll be with Ukraine until they prevail in this war." However, Moscow has threatened "extremely painful" retaliatory measures in response to the G7's decision. The funds, expected to be available by the end of the year, are intended to support both Ukraine's war effort and its economy. This financial assistance is seen as a longer-term solution, supplementing immediate military aid with economic stability for Ukraine. At the summit, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Biden signed a historic 10-year bilateral security agreement. This deal, hailed by Kyiv as "historic," includes provisions for US military and training aid to Ukraine. However, it stops short of committing American troops to fight alongside Ukrainian forces. The agreement comes as part of a broader package of support from the G7, which includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the US. These nations have been pivotal in providing both financial and military aid to Ukraine since Russia's full-scale invasion began in 2022. Leveraging Frozen Assets Following Russia's invasion, approximately $325 billion worth of Russian assets were frozen by the G7 and the European Union. These assets are generating about $3 billion annually in interest. Under the G7 plan, this interest will be used to pay off the annual interest on the $50 billion loan for Ukraine, which will be raised on international markets. President Biden explained the strategy at a joint news conference in Puglia, southern Italy, saying, "The $50 billion loan would put that money to work for Ukraine and send another reminder to Putin that we're not backing down." UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak described the loan as "game changing," highlighting the significant impact it could have on Ukraine's war effort and economic stability. While the $50 billion loan is a substantial financial commitment, it pales in comparison to the $61 billion worth of US military aid agreed upon in May. Some in Kyiv had hoped for the release of the entire $325 billion in frozen assets, not just the interest. However, the European Central Bank ruled out such a move. Military and Economic Support Although the loan will not be available immediately, it underscores the G7's commitment to supporting Ukraine in the long term. In the short term, Ukraine continues to require more weapons, particularly air defense systems to counter Russia's missile and drone attacks, and F-16 fighter jets, which are expected to start arriving as early as this summer. At the G7 summit, President Zelensky indicated that the new security agreement with the US includes shipments of these warplanes. He expressed his gratitude to the American and other G7 allies for their unwavering support, stating, "It's a truly historic day and we have signed the strongest agreement within Ukraine and the US since our independence [in 1991]." Symbolic and Practical Impact The loan deal is not only a significant financial boost but also a powerful symbolic gesture. It signals that the international community is holding Russia accountable for its actions. As one of Zelensky's closest advisers noted, the decision to use Russian assets to fund Ukraine's defense marks a turning point in the war, indicating a more proactive stance by the West. However, despite the symbolic and practical significance of the loan, it is unlikely to force a dramatic shift in Russia's approach to the conflict. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned of "extremely painful" retaliatory measures, reflecting Moscow's staunch opposition to the G7's actions. Most of the frozen Russian assets are held in Belgium, and under international law, countries cannot directly confiscate these assets and transfer them to Ukraine. This legal constraint means that while the G7's financial support is substantial, it operates within the boundaries of international law and financial norms. Credit: BBC 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a fiery speech delivered at a meeting of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, President Vladimir Putin launched a scathing attack on the United States and its Western allies, marking a significant escalation in rhetoric amid the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict. Putin's remarks came on the heels of a newly signed 10-year security pact between the US and Ukraine, further intensifying the geopolitical tension. Putin accused the West of leading the world to a perilous brink, stating, "The selfishness and hypocrisy of Western countries have led to a dangerous turn of events, and we have come close to a point of no return." He blamed Washington for undermining global security through its unilateral withdrawal from various arms control agreements, a move he said exacerbated the current volatile situation. "The selfishness and arrogance of Western states have led to the current extremely dangerous state of affairs. We have come unacceptably close to the point of no return," Putin declared. He also lambasted calls for a strategic defeat of Russia, warning that such ambitions were reckless given Russia's substantial nuclear arsenal. "Calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, which has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, demonstrate the extreme adventurism of Western politicians. They either do not understand the scale of the threat that they themselves create, or are simply obsessed with the belief in their own impunity and in their own exclusivity. Both of these can result in tragedy," he said. The US's exit from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 2019 was a particular point of contention for Putin. The INF Treaty, signed in 1987 by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, had banned missiles with ranges between 310 to 3,400 miles. However, the US withdrew from the treaty, citing concerns that it no longer served its national security interests. More recently, in 2023, Russia suspended its participation in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), further straining arms control efforts between the two nations. Despite his stern warnings, Putin also struck a somewhat conciliatory tone, suggesting that the West and Russia need to find a way to work together. He argued that the "Western model" of global security was failing and that a new, more stable system needed to be established. "Obviously, we are witnessing the collapse of the Euro-Atlantic security system. Today it simply does not exist, it needs to be essentially created anew," he said. Putin proposed that this new security architecture should be developed in collaboration with all interested parties, including European and NATO countries. "It is important to proceed from the fact that the future security architecture is open to all Eurasian countries that wish to take part in its creation. 'To all' means European and NATO countries too, of course," he emphasized. "We live on the same continent. No matter what happens, you cannot change the geography. We will have to coexist and work together one way or another." In a related development, Putin outlined Russia's conditions for initiating peace talks with Ukraine. He stated that Russia would be ready to engage in negotiations if Ukrainian forces withdrew from the Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions and if Ukraine abandoned its plans to join NATO. "Conditions are very simple," Putin asserted. "Ukrainian forces must be completely withdrawn from Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions. As soon as Kyiv says they're ready for such a decision and start the real withdrawal of forces from these regions and officially declare rejection of plans to join NATO, from our side, immediately, literally the same minute, will come an order to stop the fire and start negotiations. We will do it immediately." However, this proposition seems unlikely to be accepted by Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has consistently stated that any peace deal must include the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. Zelenskyy has vowed to liberate all occupied regions, making it clear that Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are non-negotiable. As the conflict between Ukraine and Russia drags on, the international community watches closely, hoping for a resolution that can bring stability to a deeply fractured region. However, with both sides holding firm to their demands, the path to peace remains fraught with challenges and uncertainties. Credit: Sky News 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Reform UK has achieved a significant milestone by surpassing the Conservatives in an opinion poll for the first time, marking a pivotal moment in British politics. According to a YouGov survey, Nigel Farage’s party is now at 19 percent, edging past the Conservatives, who are at 18 percent. Labour remains the frontrunner with 37 percent, maintaining an 18-point lead, while the Liberal Democrats trail in fourth place at 14 percent. This unprecedented shift in the political landscape has prompted Farage to declare, “We are now the opposition.” The survey results came in the wake of the Tory manifesto launch, highlighting the growing concern among Conservative MPs and strategists about a potential "crossover moment" in the polls—a fear that has now materialized with Farage’s return to frontline politics and his takeover from Richard Tice as Reform leader. In a statement, Farage expressed his confidence, saying, “We have now overtaken the Conservatives, we’re in second position in the country. In fact, we’re leading the Conservative Party in every single region apart from Scotland. This is the inflection point. The only wasted vote now is a Conservative vote. We are the challengers to Labour and we’re on our way.” During a seven-way election debate on ITV, Farage emphasized the significance of the poll results: “Just before we came on air, we overtook the Conservatives in a national opinion poll. We are now the opposition to Labour.” His comments came in response to accusations from Penny Mordaunt, the Tory House of Commons leader, who labeled Farage a “Labour enabler.” Farage rebutted, “As for being the Labour enabler, we are now ahead of you in the national polls. A vote for you is actually now a vote for Labour.” Mr. Tice, Reform’s chairman, expressed his satisfaction with the poll results, stating, “We’re absolutely delighted and YouGov is the gold standard of pollsters. We think they’ve been closest to our real support. And the direction of travel is that we’re heading north and the Tories are heading south. The people’s revolt is just gathering momentum.” Reform UK's campaign strategy is set to intensify as Farage prepares to launch the party’s manifesto in the Welsh valleys, targeting Labour strongholds. Farage believes that Reform can capture seats from Labour in Wales, a region that voted strongly to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. He argues that working-class communities in Wales have been neglected by Westminster since devolution and poorly served by the Labour-controlled Welsh Assembly. The Reform manifesto will not only critique the Conservative government but also highlight what it describes as “the disaster of the devolved Labour government in a left behind part of the country.” The party aims to resonate with voters disillusioned with both major parties, capitalizing on the frustration felt in regions like South Wales, where many former mining communities voted Leave in 2016. The Conservative campaign, meanwhile, has faced multiple setbacks. Recently, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had to apologize for leaving D-Day commemorations in Normandy early. Additionally, Sunak was embroiled in controversy after one of his aides placed a £100 bet on a July election just days before the Prime Minister announced it would take place on July 4, leading to an investigation by the Gambling Commission. Lee Anderson, a former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party who defected to Reform in February, remarked on the poll results: “It’s happened, the crossover has actually happened. We are now polling ahead of the Conservative Party. Vote Conservative, get Labour.” A Tory MP from a marginal Red Wall constituency commented, “This is what happens when you fail to deliver on immigration.” Reform’s surge in support since Farage’s return has caught Tory strategists off guard. A YouGov survey conducted just before Farage announced his comeback had Reform at 10 percent and the Tories comfortably in second place at 25 percent. Farage’s return to leadership has nearly doubled Reform's polling figures, disrupting the Conservatives’ election strategy. Andrew Wells, head of European political and social research at YouGov, noted the significance of the poll: “Obviously all polls have a margin of error, so we can’t conclude for certain that more voters now back Nigel Farage’s party over the Conservatives. But what it does make clear is that at the very least the Conservatives and Reform are at a very similar level of support to each other. That in itself is remarkable given how close we are to an election when we might otherwise have expected smaller parties’ votes to be squeezed.” Despite the poll’s implications, some Conservative figures remain skeptical. David Davis, the former Conservative Brexit secretary, urged voters to be cautious about poll results: “On the doorstep in my constituency, I don’t see it. I’m sure the polls are right today. But the other thing I know from my 10 different campaigns is the polls are always off. There’s only one opinion poll that’s not off and it’s the one they take as people come out of the polling station. All the others are off by between 6 and 20 percent.” The Conservative Party’s warnings about a potential Labour super-majority have been highlighted in their social media campaigns, suggesting that the party could be reduced to a rump of just 57 seats, with the Liberal Democrats potentially overtaking them as the largest opposition party. As the political landscape shifts, the upcoming election promises to be a defining moment for all parties involved. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that he would order an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine if Kyiv agreed to withdraw troops from the four regions occupied and annexed by Russia in 2022 and renounce its NATO membership aspirations. This statement was made during a speech at the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow on Friday. Putin described this proposal as a "final resolution" to the conflict, emphasizing that it would bring about unity between Russia and Ukraine, as well as with Europe more broadly. He asserted the Kremlin's readiness to start negotiations without delay. “We will do it immediately,” Putin stated, suggesting that such an agreement would prevent the conflict from being frozen and instead provide a lasting solution. There was no immediate response from Kyiv. Ukraine remains firm on its NATO membership ambitions and insists on the withdrawal of Russian troops from all occupied territories. Putin's remarks coincided with a meeting of G7 leaders in Italy, where a €46 billion loan package for Ukraine was agreed upon. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also signed a 10-year security agreement with US President Joe Biden. Switzerland is set to host a conference aimed at outlining steps towards peace in Ukraine, drawing from Zelenskyy's 10-point peace formula introduced in late 2022. This conference seeks to rally international support and present a unified front against Russian aggression. Background on the Conflict Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022. After failing to capture Kyiv, the conflict has predominantly focused on the southern and eastern border regions of Ukraine. Despite Russia's annexation claims, it does not fully control any of the four regions (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson). Putin's demands include the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from these regions and their cession to Russia. In Zaporizhzhia, Russian forces do not control the regional capital, and in Kherson, they withdrew from the city of Kherson in November 2022. Reactions and Implications The proposal by Putin comes at a critical juncture, as Ukraine continues to garner significant international support, both militarily and economically. The G7's financial support and the security pact with the US highlight the global community's commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and defense. While Putin’s offer might appear as a pathway to peace, it essentially demands significant territorial concessions and a major shift in Ukraine’s foreign policy, which Kyiv is unlikely to accept without considerable pressure or significant concessions from Russia. The ongoing international efforts to support Ukraine and the planned peace conference in Switzerland underscore a continued push for a resolution that does not compromise Ukraine's territorial integrity or sovereignty. Credit: EURO News 2024-06-14 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a significant legal development, Russia is facing accusations of utilizing deliberate starvation tactics during the 85-day siege of Mariupol in early 2022. This brutal strategy, aimed at causing widespread civilian harm, is being examined as a potential war crime by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The siege of Mariupol, a key port city in southeastern Ukraine, marked one of the most harrowing episodes at the outset of Russia's invasion. Approximately 22,000 civilians are believed to have perished during this period, as they were left without essential services such as water, gas, and electricity. The temperatures during the siege plummeted to below minus 10°C, exacerbating the suffering of the city's residents. The ICC submission, prepared by Global Rights Compliance in collaboration with the Ukrainian government, argues that Russia, under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin, engaged in a calculated strategy to inflict mass civilian casualties by denying access to food and other vital services. Catriona Murdoch, a partner at Global Rights Compliance, highlighted the systematic nature of this strategy, describing it as a four-phase assault. In the first phase, Russian forces targeted and disabled the city's electricity, heating, and water supplies, effectively crippling its infrastructure. The second phase involved blocking humanitarian aid, with Russian forces denying and even attacking evacuation efforts, ensuring that aid could not reach the besieged population. The third phase saw continued assaults on remaining critical infrastructure, with deliberate bombings of aid and water distribution points to terrorize civilians further. The final phase involved strategic attacks aimed at destroying or capturing any remaining infrastructure, completing the encirclement and subjugation of the city. The extensive destruction in Mariupol, where an estimated 90% of healthcare facilities and homes were either destroyed or damaged, underscores the severity of the situation. Food distribution points and humanitarian evacuation routes were bombed, exacerbating the already dire humanitarian crisis. The dossier concludes that responsibility for these actions lies at the highest levels of Russian leadership, implicating President Putin and senior military officials, although specific commanders were not named. Starvation and the denial of essential services are recognized as war crimes, but this area of international law remains relatively new and untested in court. To date, no alleged perpetrator has been prosecuted for such crimes. However, recent actions by ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan indicate a growing legal focus on this issue. Khan recently applied for arrest warrants against Israeli officials for alleged starvation tactics in Gaza, marking the first time the ICC has pursued such charges. This precedent may influence the ICC's approach to the Mariupol case. Murdoch emphasized that these recent applications have brought greater attention to starvation as a prosecutable war crime and may shape the ICC's consideration of the Mariupol dossier. Collecting evidence for this case presented significant challenges due to the ongoing Russian occupation and extensive destruction in the city. However, the lawyers employed innovative methods, including a specially designed algorithm to map destruction using satellite imagery. This technology helped correlate specific locations and their destruction with what explosives experts identified as Russian attacks. The submission of this dossier to the ICC represents a significant step in holding those responsible for the siege of Mariupol accountable. If the court acts on this submission, it could mark a pivotal moment in the prosecution of war crimes related to starvation and the deliberate denial of essential services. Murdoch stated, "What we could see is that there were four phases to the Russian assault, starting with attacks on civilian infrastructure, cutting out the supply of electricity, heating, and water. Then humanitarian evacuations were denied and even attacked, while aid was prevented from getting through. In the third phase, the remaining critical infrastructure was targeted, civilians terrorized with aid and water points bombed. Finally, in phase four, Russia engaged in strategic attacks to destroy or capture any remaining infrastructure items." The dossier concludes that the phased targeting of Mariupol demonstrated a lack of mercy for its civilian population, which was estimated at 450,000 before the full invasion began on February 24, 2022. Murdoch asserted that "Vladimir Putin is culpable," along with the "echelons of the Russian military leadership." The ICC accepts third-party submissions, though it does not necessarily act on them. Starvation and the denial of amenities necessary for civilian life are considered war crimes, but prosecutions in this area are unprecedented. Last month, ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan applied for an arrest warrant for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, arguing that they had deliberately inflicted starvation on Palestinians in Gaza—a claim rejected by Israel. Khan asserted, "Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival." Three Hamas leaders were also subject to similar applications, relating to the conflict that began with the group's attack on Israel on October 7. Murdoch explained that Khan’s applications for arrest warrants related to starvation as a war crime were the first of their kind and had brought the issue to the forefront of legal minds. "What it showed is where the ICC’s thinking is," she said. Initially, gathering evidence for a war crimes dossier on Mariupol seemed daunting due to the Russian occupation and intense fighting. However, Global Rights Compliance developed a technique that used a specially created algorithm to map the destruction of specific locations, as monitored by satellite imagery, with what explosives experts assessed as Russian attacks. As the ICC reviews this submission, the international community awaits its response. The outcome could set a significant precedent for future prosecutions of war crimes related to starvation and the deliberate denial of essential services. Credit: The Guardian 2024-06-14 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Republican Kari Lake has lost her appeal in the Arizona Court of Appeals challenging the 2022 governor election results, where she was defeated by Democrat Katie Hobbs. The appeals court upheld the previous judge's decision that Lake failed to demonstrate that thousands of Phoenix-area mail ballot signatures were improperly verified. Maricopa County, which is home to over 60% of voters in Arizona, was at the center of the controversy over the verification of mail ballot signatures. Lake's attorney, Bryan James Blehm, did not respond to requests for comment on whether Lake would further appeal the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court. Blehm was also recently sanctioned by the State Bar of Arizona for making "unequivocally false" statements to the state Supreme Court during Lake's election challenges. His 60-day suspension will begin on July 7. Despite losing multiple court challenges, Kari Lake has refused to acknowledge her loss to Katie Hobbs by more than 17,000 votes. Lake, a former television news anchor, is currently running for U.S. Senate and is considered the frontrunner for the GOP primary. She is expected to face Democratic U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego in the November election for the seat currently held by independent Kyrsten Sinema, who is not seeking re-election. Lake has been one of the most vocal candidates in the GOP, echoing former President Donald Trump's false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. In the Appeals Court ruling, Presiding Judge Sean Brearcliffe highlighted Lake's argument that over 8,000 ballots were "maliciously misconfigured to cause a tabulator rejection" and were not counted. However, even if all these votes had been for Lake, it would not have been sufficient to overcome the 17,000-vote margin between Lake and Hobbs. The ruling further solidifies Katie Hobbs' victory in the 2022 Arizona governor race and underscores the challenges faced by candidates contesting election results in the state. Credit: AP News 2024-06-14 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Harvard University researchers have proposed a startling theory: extraterrestrial beings may already be living among us, possibly residing in advanced technological civilizations deep underground or in a base on the moon. This provocative idea is detailed in a new paper from Harvard's Human Flourishing Program, which delves into the enigmatic phenomenon of "unidentified anomalous phenomena" (UAP), more commonly known as UFOs. The study paper, titled The Cryptoterrestrial Hypothesis: A Case for Scientific Openness to a Concealed Earthly Explanation for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena,"** advocates for a broader consideration of potential explanations for UAPs. The authors, Tim Lomas, Brendan Case, and Michael Paul Masters, argue that the scientific community should adopt a spirit of "epistemic humility and openness" when investigating these phenomena. Exploring New Frontiers Traditionally, explanations for UAPs have been divided into two main categories: conventional terrestrial explanations, such as human-made technology, and extraterrestrial explanations, involving advanced civilizations from other parts of the cosmos. However, the Harvard researchers propose a third, less conventional category: an unconventional terrestrial explanation. This hypothesis suggests that UAPs could be the result of advanced civilizations that have developed on Earth, separate from known human history. The paper outlines several "cryptoterrestrial" hypotheses (CTH) to explain these unidentified phenomena: 1. Temporal or Extraterrestrial Visitors:** Cryptoterrestrials might have arrived on Earth from another time period or planet and have concealed themselves using advanced stealth technologies. 2. Parallel Evolution:** An intelligent species could have evolved separately from humans on Earth, possibly as descendants of unknown intelligent dinosaurs or ape-like ancestors. 3. Ancient Remnant Civilizations:** A remnant form of an ancient civilization could still exist on Earth, having survived a catastrophic event like a flood or another natural disaster. 4. Supernatural Entities:** This theory entertains the possibility of "earthbound angels" or other supernatural beings, likened to fairies, elves, or nymphs, existing in a hidden capacity. The authors acknowledge the skepticism that their theories will likely encounter, particularly the suggestion of supernatural entities like elves or fairies. They admit that such ideas may seem far-fetched, especially to those accustomed to the standard model of physics. "While belief in extraterrestrials is tenable, belief in (something like) fairies is simply not a live option for many scientists," the paper concedes. The Growing Interest in UFOs Interest in UFOs and UAPs has surged in recent years, driven by both public fascination and governmental concern. Lawmakers and military officials worldwide have called for more research, often framing the issue as one of national and planetary security. Last year, David Grusch, a career intelligence officer turned whistleblower, testified before Congress, alleging that the U.S. government has been hiding a long-standing program dedicated to retrieving and reverse-engineering UFOs. Grusch claimed to have been tasked with identifying all highly classified programs related to UAPs. However, the Pentagon has denied these claims, stating that investigators have not found any verifiable evidence to support the existence of such programs. NASA has also weighed in on the matter, stating that while the search for extraterrestrial life is a key priority, there is currently no credible evidence to suggest that UAPs are of extraterrestrial origin. "One of NASA’s key priorities is the search for life elsewhere in the universe, but so far, NASA has not found any credible evidence of extraterrestrial life and there is no evidence that UAPs are extraterrestrial," a NASA statement read. Government Response and Public Perception The Harvard paper addresses the U.S. government's response to UAP sightings, noting that many people believe federal officials are deliberately downplaying or obscuring the extraordinary nature of many UAP-related events. This perception of obfuscation contributes to public mistrust and fuels further speculation about the true nature of these phenomena. The paper has yet to undergo peer review and will soon be published in the journal *Philosophy and Cosmology*. The authors hope that by proposing these unconventional hypotheses, they can stimulate a broader and more open-minded scientific inquiry into the mysteries of UAPs. Conclusion While the idea of hidden civilizations on Earth may seem like the stuff of science fiction, the Harvard researchers emphasize the importance of keeping an open mind. As our understanding of the universe and our place within it continues to evolve, so too must our willingness to explore all possible explanations for the phenomena we observe. Whether or not the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis holds water, it represents a bold step toward a more inclusive and imaginative approach to scientific inquiry. Credit: Global News CA 2024-06-14 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The leadership of Hamas is exploiting Western efforts aimed at alleviating the suffering of Palestinians, using the situation for their own self-preservation. The West, particularly the Biden administration, has been driven by the desire to end the suffering endured by ordinary Palestinians since Hamas launched a devastating attack against Israel on October 7. Western initiatives have focused not only on securing the release of approximately 120 Israeli hostages held by Hamas but also on preventing further bloodshed among Palestinian civilians. The Biden administration has been particularly invested in reaching a ceasefire, securing support from the United Nations Security Council before Secretary of State Antony Blinken embarked on yet another diplomatic mission to the Middle East—his eighth since the Gaza conflict erupted. Despite these efforts, previous U.S. initiatives have often ended in failure, frequently attributed to the intransigence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu's insistence on continuing Israel's military campaign against Hamas, even if Hamas were to release all remaining Israeli hostages, is often cited as a key obstacle to achieving a truce. However, as recent developments reveal, it is not Netanyahu's uncompromising stance that is primarily thwarting peace efforts. Instead, the fanaticism of Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas mastermind behind the October 7 atrocities, is the main impediment. Sinwar, who once boasted of strangling a suspected Palestinian collaborator with his bare hands, spent 22 years in an Israeli prison for killing two Israeli soldiers and four Palestinians in the 1980s. Known as “The Butcher of Khan Yunis” after the Gazan enclave where he was born, Sinwar appears to have calculated that the inevitable Israeli military response to the October 7 attacks would ultimately benefit Hamas. Leaked messages from Sinwar to other Hamas commanders suggest that his strategy has been effective. By weaponizing the Gaza conflict, Sinwar has managed to shift much of the global criticism towards Israel, while the deceptive tactics employed by Hamas for their self-preservation often go unnoticed. Hamas's use of Palestinian civilians as human shields and its utilization of schools and hospitals as command centers highlight the group's cynical duplicity. A striking example of this duplicity emerged recently when it was revealed that a Palestinian journalist who regularly wrote articles condemning Israeli "genocide" in Gaza was himself using his home to hold Israeli hostages abducted during the October 7 attacks. This incident underscores the willingness of Hamas commanders to exploit Gaza's civilian population for their own ends. Sinwar's messages reveal his belief that the Palestinian death toll, exacerbated by Hamas's operations in densely populated areas, is a "necessary sacrifice." From his perspective, the global criticism directed at Israel means that "we have the Israelis right where we want them." This callous disregard for the Palestinian people is a critical factor that Western negotiators must consider in their efforts to broker a ceasefire. Since the conflict began, Sinwar's primary goal has been to ensure Hamas's survival in some form in Gaza, even if it means that only a fraction of its initial 24 battalions of fighters remains. This is why, whenever figures like Blinken arrive with new ceasefire proposals, Hamas immediately demands a complete Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza—an offer that even the most peace-seeking Israelis are unlikely to accept, as it would enable Hamas to continue its attacks on Israel’s southern border. Moreover, any ceasefire that allows Hamas to maintain control in Gaza would be seen as rewarding its leaders for their acts of terrorism. Now that Sinwar's contemptuous attitude towards the welfare of Palestinians has been exposed, it should be clear to Western policymakers that Hamas, not Israel, is the true obstacle to achieving lasting peace in Gaza. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-06-14 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The Biden administration is frantically working to prevent the escalating violence between Israel and Hezbollah from escalating into a full-scale war, as U.S. officials express deep concern over the potential for a broader conflict. This delicate situation unfolds amidst ongoing efforts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza, with fears that a war with Hezbollah could drastically exacerbate the regional crisis and draw the United States deeper into the conflict. The administration has warned Israel in recent weeks about the dangers of engaging in what it might perceive as a "limited war" in Lebanon. Officials highlight the risk of Iranian intervention, cautioning that Iran could mobilize pro-Iranian militants from Syria, Iraq, and Yemen to join the conflict. U.S. officials are particularly apprehensive about Israel either rushing into a war with Hezbollah or being inadvertently dragged into one without a clear strategy and without considering the full implications of a wider conflict. Behind the scenes, the White House is striving to contain the skirmishes between Israel and Hezbollah while simultaneously working towards securing a ceasefire in Gaza. The belief among officials is that achieving a ceasefire in Gaza is crucial for significantly de-escalating tensions along the Israeli-Lebanese border. The situation has intensified following an Israeli airstrike on Tuesday that killed a senior Hezbollah commander, Taleb Sami Abdullah, in the town of Jwaya, around six miles north of the border. Abdullah, who headed the "Naser" unit responsible for operations along the eastern border with Israel, was the highest-ranking Hezbollah official killed since the conflict began on October 7. Hezbollah has since vowed to escalate its attacks against Israel, launching 200 rockets on Wednesday, marking the most extensive assault since the initial conflict began. One of the Israeli targets that Hezbollah attacked was a factory for armored vehicles. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin communicated with his Israeli counterpart, Yoav Gallant, expressing concerns about the increased activity in northern Israel and urging de-escalation. "We are concerned about an increase in activity in the north. We don't want this to escalate to a broad regional conflict, and we urge de-escalation," said Pentagon deputy spokeswoman Sabrina Singh. Concurrently, the commander of the Lebanese army, Gen. Joseph Aoun, is in Washington for discussions with White House and Pentagon officials, as well as members of Congress, about the current crisis. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, during a press conference in Doha, emphasized that no party desires a war. He stressed that most stakeholders believe there can and should be a diplomatic resolution to the differences that could ignite a broader conflict. "It's safe to say that actually no one is looking to start a war," Blinken said. "What I've heard from everyone concerned and others who are working on this is there's a strong preference for a diplomatic solution." While traveling with President Biden to the G7 summit in Italy, White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan expressed the administration's particular concern about the border exchanges with Lebanon. He stressed that the U.S. is in close consultation with Israel on this issue. "The U.S. is particularly concerned about the exchange of fire across the border with Lebanon," Sullivan told reporters aboard Air Force One. The Biden administration's efforts highlight the delicate balancing act required to prevent a regional conflict while pursuing a ceasefire in Gaza. As the U.S. engages in high-stakes diplomacy, the situation remains precarious, with the potential for rapid escalation posing a significant threat to regional stability. Credit: AXIOS 2024-06-14 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In northeastern Syria, children of ISIS fighters are grappling with a harsh reality: growing up behind bars for crimes they did not commit. Many of these young individuals, like Stefan Uterloo, find themselves in detention simply because of their parents' actions. At just 14, Uterloo was blindfolded and questioned by American officials. Now, at 19, he remains in Panorama, a maximum-security prison funded by the US-led coalition against ISIS and operated by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish-led militia. He shares his confinement with 25 other young men in a single cell. Uterloo is among an estimated 600 boys and young men detained in Panorama, part of a larger group of nearly 4,000 ISIS male detainees. These young people, many brought to Syria by their parents to live under ISIS rule, now face an uncertain future. "I don’t know about the big guys," Uterloo said. "But if you’re speaking about the kids, and if you want to know the truth, we don’t even know why we are always punished. It’s like five years in this prison ... We don’t even know what we’ve done. We’ve been in prison because of our parents." The United Nations and various human rights organizations have long sounded the alarm about the humanitarian and legal crises faced by the children of ISIS fighters. Despite this, there is little consensus on how to handle their situation. As the US raises concerns about ISIS attempting to reestablish itself and launch attacks on the West, there is a renewed push to repatriate fighters and their families to their home countries for justice. Amnesty International estimates that approximately 30,000 children are currently held in at least 27 detention facilities and two camps—Al-Hol and Al-Roj—in northeastern Syria. This represents the highest concentration of children arbitrarily detained and deprived of their freedom globally. In a rare instance, CNN was granted access to these detention facilities, including Panorama prison. Amnesty International recently accused the SDF of holding detainees in "inhumane conditions," citing reports of torture and inadequate food and medical care, leading to a severe tuberculosis outbreak. The SDF disputes these claims. Mazloum Abdi, the SDF's top commander, stated that the allegations "are not mirroring the reality." During CNN's visit, detainees in the supervised cells appeared to be in decent physical condition, housed in clean, air-conditioned spaces. However, tuberculosis remains rampant, causing five deaths per month, and coughing could be heard throughout the hallways. Officials acknowledged that detainees spend up to 23 hours per day in their cells and are held indefinitely without charge. Advocacy groups argue that this situation creates "a legal black hole," potentially worse than the US' Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The broader issue extends to Al-Hol, a sprawling detention camp housing over 40,000 people, including individuals with ISIS affiliations and displaced persons. In a high-security annex, around 6,700 women and children with links to ISIS fighters are detained, many from over 60 countries. More than half of Al-Hol's population are children, the majority under 12 years old. The camp poses significant security risks. Gen. Erik Kurilla, head of the US military's Central Command, described Al-Hol as "a ticking time bomb," warning that it is "a breeding ground for the next generation of ISIS." Efforts to repatriate detainees from Syria have been slow. The population of Al-Hol has decreased by 42% from its peak of over 73,000 in 2019, but the process remains sluggish. Many detainees hail from countries outside the US-led coalition, such as Russia and China, complicating repatriation efforts. At the current pace, it could take at least seven more years to halve the camp's population. To mitigate the radicalization risk, the SDF has implemented a policy of separating boys at age 14 from their mothers, placing them in rehabilitation centers. However, children as young as 11 have been found in these facilities, suggesting that the policy may be applied more broadly. Former UN Special Rapporteur Fionnuala Ní Aoláin condemned this practice, stating, "It runs us into the area of a war crime." Compared to Al-Hol, the Orkesh rehabilitation center offers better conditions, with rooms, meals, and psychological support. Shamil Chakar, a teenager from Germany, recounted his violent separation from his mother in Al-Hol and his subsequent detention in Orkesh. Despite missing their families, detainees in Orkesh benefit from improved living conditions and support services. Repatriation efforts offer a glimmer of hope for some detainees. In May, American Brandy Salman and her nine children were repatriated from Al-Roj camp. However, others, like Hoda Muthana, an American-born woman who joined ISIS, remain in limbo. Muthana, whose US citizenship was revoked, lives in fear for her son's future as he approaches the age for forced separation. Her legal team continues to push for her and her son's repatriation, but the US government maintains that she is not a citizen. Muthana expressed her desperation to return to the US, even if it means facing imprisonment. "If I had any time to serve, I would serve it and I would come out and begin my life with my son," she told CNN. "If I were to have the choice between American prison and this camp, I would choose an American prison any day." The plight of these children and young adults underscores the complex humanitarian and legal challenges in dealing with the remnants of ISIS. As the world grapples with how to address these issues, the children of ISIS fighters continue to bear the consequences of their parents' actions, trapped in a cycle of detention and uncertainty. Credit: CNN 2024-06-14 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe