Social Media

US President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for National Security Adviser, Representative Mike Waltz, issued a stark warning to those holding American hostages, promising severe consequences for such actions. Speaking to conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, Waltz articulated the incoming administration's uncompromising stance, emphasizing that there would be “nothing but consequences” for hostage-takers, ranging from financial penalties to fatal responses. Watch: The incoming National Security Advisor Mike Waltz: “You take an American, you illegally detain them, if you're a nation state or if you're a terrorist, you hold them hostage there’s going to be hell to pay (…) maybe even a bullet in your damn forehead” Hamas and the Hostages Israeli officials report that seven of the remaining 96 hostages held in Gaza have US citizenship, with only three believed to be alive. Tuesday will mark 445 days since these hostages were taken, surpassing the duration of the 1979 US embassy crisis in Iran. Despite his tough rhetoric, Waltz suggested that Hamas might be allowed to continue operating if it releases the American hostages. “Hamas has every exit blocked except one, and that’s to release our hostages if you want to live,” he warned, leaving the door open to conditional survival for the organization. This stance diverges from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's position, which insists on Hamas’s total military and political dismantlement regardless of the hostage situation. Waltz’s remarks hint at a potential rift in US-Israeli strategy but align with Trump’s transactional style of diplomacy. Broader Regional Implications Waltz also addressed Iran’s precarious position following Israel's recent covert operations, including September's Mossad-led attack that sabotaged Hezbollah's communication infrastructure. He praised this as a masterstroke that not only disrupted Hezbollah but also weakened Iran’s regional influence. “Taking down Hezbollah… exposed Iran’s air defenses so that they literally are naked right now and on their back foot,” Waltz said, forecasting broader implications for Middle Eastern geopolitics. Optimistic about normalization efforts between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Waltz emphasized that resolving the Gaza situation could unlock unprecedented diplomatic opportunities. As Trump’s inauguration approaches, the administration’s zero-tolerance message underscores a critical shift in US foreign policy. Waltz’s explicit threats and focus on punitive measures signal a dramatic departure from traditional diplomatic approaches to hostage crises. Whether this strategy succeeds in securing the release of American hostages remains to be seen. Based on a report by EconoTimes 2024-12-24

Flame has been removed. Please discuss without the need for personal insults.

A reminder of the topic is needed: Amnesty International "It's a Genocide in Gaza" This is not a general update on incidents of the war in Gaza, there is a topic already for that here: Israel Hamas War the Widening Middle East Conflict

Sir Keir Starmer, the newly appointed Prime Minister, is grappling with the "relentless strain" of the role, according to close friends. They claim he is in dire need of a holiday to recover from what has been a bruising start to his premiership. His first months in office have seen a sharp drop in his personal approval ratings, with one friend revealing, “He needs a lot of soothing and a lot of buoying up at the moment.” While Downing Street maintains that Sir Keir’s morale remains high, others close to him suggest the challenges have taken a toll. “He talks a good game about needing to take the unpopular decisions now, and expecting this resistance,” said a friend. “But I don’t think he realized quite how unpopular they—or he—would be.” To recharge, the Prime Minister is reportedly planning his first holiday since the general election, intending to take a break over the New Year. Despite commanding a parliamentary majority of 165 seats, the government has struggled to maintain control over its agenda, sparking questions about the demands of modern leadership. Some observers wonder whether Sir Keir will endure the full electoral term under such pressure. A senior Downing Street official offered a glimpse into the constant demands of the role, comparing today’s challenges to those faced by former prime ministers Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair. “Thatcher and Blair managed to last a decade, but they were in a different league—and the world was a different place,” the official said. “Thatcher had to worry about the BBC, ITV, and a handful of national newspapers. Blair had a few more outlets to contend with. Now, with social media, it’s a constant game of whack-a-mole to prevent storms erupting.” The official went on to describe the frenetic pace of modern governance: “At any one time, you can be simultaneously deciding whether to authorize an attack on a terrorist target by studying live drone footage, while welcoming the Girl Guide Association to a reception at No. 10 and clearing a statement of tribute to a dead celebrity. Every minute of every day is like that.” One of the reasons Sir Keir reportedly resisted dismissing Sue Gray, his Chief of Staff, was her ability to manage his workload by controlling access to him. This decision highlights the immense pressures he faces as he navigates the early days of his premiership. The challenges for Sir Keir intensified shortly after the election when Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the end of universal winter fuel payments. This unpopular move contributed to a decline in public support, leaving Sir Keir’s ratings comparable to those of Jeremy Corbyn at the end of his tenure as Labour leader. As the Prime Minister prepares for a much-needed holiday, the pressure to stabilize his leadership and regain public trust looms large. Whether he can withstand the relentless demands of the role remains to be seen. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-12-23

A Senate Judiciary Committee report released by Democrats has accused the Supreme Court of ethical failings and called for reforms. This investigation, concluded just before Republicans assume control of the Senate, underscores a contentious debate over the court's accountability and transparency. “The Supreme Court has mired itself in an ethical crisis of its own making by failing to address justices’ ethical misconduct for decades,” the report asserts. Spanning 95 pages, the document outlines a series of alleged ethical breaches, including Justice Clarence Thomas’s undisclosed trips with billionaire Harlan Crow. These trips, first exposed by ProPublica in April 2023, served as the catalyst for the investigation. The controversy over the court’s ethics led to the adoption of a new ethics code in November 2023, but critics, including those behind the report, argue the code lacks substance. Without enforcement mechanisms, many view it as a superficial attempt at reform. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, expressed frustration that Chief Justice John Roberts refused to participate in the investigation. They have urged Congress to implement stricter regulations, including an enforceable code of conduct for the justices, overseen by an independent review panel. The committee’s legislative push this year reflected these priorities, but the proposed bill was blocked by Republicans, who have consistently opposed such measures. “An enforceable code of conduct for the Supreme Court is essential in light of the court’s failure to police itself,” the report contends. The report also criticizes lapses in recusal practices, with particular attention on Justice Thomas. It highlights his decision not to recuse himself from cases related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, despite his wife, Ginni Thomas, supporting then-President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Further criticisms target the Judicial Conference, the court’s administrative body, for its inability to enforce financial disclosure regulations. This lack of accountability has contributed to broader concerns about the court's impartiality and ethical standards. Predictably, the report has drawn pushback from conservatives. Mark Paoletta, an ally of Justice Thomas, dismissed the investigation in a post on X, asserting that its true intent was to undermine the court for failing to align with Democrats’ political objectives. “This entire investigation was never about ‘ethics’ but about trying to undermine the Supreme Court because the Court is no longer acting like a super legislature handing down opinions implementing the Democrats’ political agenda,” Paoletta argued. With Republicans poised to take control of the Senate, the Democrats' report may mark the end of the current chapter in efforts to reform the Supreme Court. Yet the findings and calls for change are likely to fuel ongoing debates about the role and accountability of the judiciary in a polarized political landscape. Based on a report by NBC 2024-12-23

A senior New York State Supreme Court judge has stepped down following a widely condemned incident captured on police body camera, in which she threatened to shoot Black teenagers at a chaotic graduation party. Justice Erin P. Gall, 53, announced her resignation after what the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct described as one of the most egregious cases in decades. "Judge Erin P. Gall resigns after threatening to shoot black teenagers at party in wild footage" The event, held in July 2022 at a friend's home in New Hartford, descended into chaos when uninvited guests began fighting, prompting calls to the police. Although dozens of teenagers lingered at the scene, Gall focused her anger on the four Black youths, whom police were attempting to assist in locating their keys. "You've got to leave!" she shouted at them. "You're not going to find the keys. You've gotta call an Uber and get off the property." When officers tried to calm her, she responded angrily, demanding they follow her orders. "It's my jurisdiction, though," she asserted to an officer, who stifled a laugh in response. At one point, Gall escalated her rhetoric, predicting violence if the teens returned to the property. "If they did, they'll be arrested, or they'll be shot on the property," she said. "Because when they trespass, you can shoot them on the property. I'll shoot them on the property." The judge’s comments also included derogatory remarks about the teenagers, whom she claimed "don't look like they're that smart" and "are not going to business school, that's for sure." Gall later told investigators she had not been drinking that evening and attributed her outburst to "fear, dismay, frustration, and exhaustion." Her lawyer, Robert Julian, acknowledged the remarks but said they were made under duress. The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct suspended Gall following the incident and ruled her behavior "severely undermined public confidence." Robert H. Tembeckjian, the commission's administrator, described it as "as shocking as anything I have seen in my 40 years of judicial ethics enforcement." In her resignation, effective December 15, Gall expressed regret and sought privacy for herself and her family, citing death threats and the need for constant security. "I certainly do not think it fair to characterize my reactions as racially motivated," she stated. However, she conceded that her actions would likely result in her permanent removal from the bench. Gall, who was elected to the state Supreme Court in 2011 and earned an annual salary of $232,600, has no intention of seeking judicial office again. "The decision to no longer pursue review and abandon hope of remaining on the bench has been extremely difficult," she said. Her resignation marks the conclusion of a scandal that sparked widespread condemnation and raised questions about judicial conduct and accountability. Based on a report by NYT 2024-12-23

President Joe Biden has confirmed he will attend the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump next month, reaffirming his commitment to upholding democratic traditions. Speaking with MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas on Thursday, Biden said, “Of course I am. The only president I avoided the inauguration of is the guy about to be inaugurated.” The announcement follows a statement from the White House last month that both Biden and First Lady Jill Biden would honor their pledge to attend the inauguration of the election's victor. "The president promised that he would attend the inauguration of whomever won the election. He and the first lady are going to honor that promise and attend the inauguration," White House senior deputy press secretary Andrew Bates reiterated. This gesture contrasts sharply with the precedent set in 2021 when Trump declined to attend Biden’s inauguration. At the time, Trump faced significant backlash for his role in the events surrounding the January 6 Capitol riot. Bates emphasized the importance of Biden’s decision to attend, framing it as a commitment to democracy. "Biden views attending the inauguration as an important demonstration of commitment to our democratic values and to honoring the will of the people as we continue to provide an orderly and effective transition," Bates explained. Biden has frequently highlighted the importance of a peaceful transfer of power as a cornerstone of American democracy. Last month, he met with Trump to discuss the forthcoming transition, with both leaders pledging a smooth and orderly handover. The upcoming inauguration marks a rare moment in modern American politics where a sitting president attends the inauguration of a former rival returning to office. This act, Biden believes, underscores the resilience of democratic norms despite partisan divides. Based on a report by The Hill 2024-12-23

Allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse by former NYPD Chief of Department Jeffrey Maddrey have ignited a scandal that has shaken the city’s police force. According to police sources and accusers, Maddrey’s predatory behavior was a long-standing “open secret” within the department, casting a shadow over his years of service. The controversy erupted when NYPD Lieutenant Quatisha Epps, 51, formally accused Maddrey, 53, of coercing her into a sexual relationship in exchange for significant overtime benefits. The allegations, detailed in a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), suggest a pattern of exploitation that dates back to Maddrey’s promotion to chief of department in June 2023. In her complaint, Epps claimed Maddrey exploited her vulnerability as a survivor of incest, using her personal history to manipulate and control her. “I think he’s a predator,” Epps stated. “He’d say, ‘We’re going to save your house,’ like you’re supporting me when you’re really just f—ing me.” Epps, who recently made headlines as the NYPD’s top earner with a staggering $400,000 salary—more than half of which came from overtime—alleged Maddrey demanded unwanted sexual favors in exchange for these lucrative opportunities. The demands, she claimed, were relentless and abusive. “I kept asking him, ‘Can you please stop?’ Then I stopped asking him to stop,” Epps said. “‘Can you please just slow down? You’re hurting me! You’re hurting me!’” Maddrey’s alleged misconduct extended beyond Epps. At least two other women in the department have come forward with accusations against him. A police source familiar with the situation described Maddrey as a predator, stating, “It’s an open secret. Everyone knows who he is.” The complaint also alleges Maddrey forced Epps to perform humiliating tasks, including managing his personal relationships with other women on the force. Epps claimed Maddrey ordered her to keep two of his mistresses from discovering each other, adding another layer of degradation to her experience. Epps worked closely with Maddrey throughout his career as he ascended from chief of housing to chief of patrol and finally to chief of department, overseeing the NYPD’s 36,000-member force. However, she alleged the sexual demands began only after his promotion to the department’s highest-ranking uniformed position. Attorney Eric Sanders, who represents Epps, filed the EEOC complaint as a precursor to a lawsuit against the city. The document outlines a timeline of abuse that underscores the power dynamics at play, highlighting how Maddrey allegedly leveraged his authority to exploit subordinates for personal gain. As the NYPD and city officials contend with these explosive allegations, the case raises critical questions about accountability and oversight within one of the world’s largest police forces. For now, the voices of Epps and other accusers are bringing to light what they say was a culture of silence and complicity, with one source summing it up: “Everyone knew, but no one did anything.” Based on a report by NYP 2024-12-23

In an enlightening conversation, Elaine Pagels, a distinguished professor of religion at Princeton University, engages with Nicholas Kristof about her upcoming book, *Miracles and Wonder*, which tackles the virgin birth of Jesus and its historical implications. Known for her expertise on early Christianity, Pagels offers a perspective that blends faith and academic inquiry, urging readers to reflect critically on traditional narratives while also appreciating their spiritual significance. Kristof, acknowledging the sensitivity of the topic for devout believers, begins the conversation by emphasizing the importance of balancing historical research with respect for those who hold deep faith. Pagels responds with a thoughtful approach, explaining her love for the Gospel stories. “The skies opened up when I heard them,” she recalls, speaking of the profound emotional and spiritual impact these stories have. However, she also stresses that while these stories are deeply meaningful, they should be understood not merely as historical accounts but also as metaphors that convey deeper truths about human experience and divine mystery. Pagels then turns to the topic of the virgin birth. Of the four Gospels, only two — Matthew and Luke — mention it, while Mark and John make no reference to it. Pagels points out that the Gospel of Mark, the earliest of the four, does not suggest a virgin birth. Instead, Mark refers to Jesus as “the son of Mary,” a striking anomaly in a patriarchal society where a child’s identity was typically linked to the father. This raises the question of whether Jesus was seen as fatherless by his community, a point that both Matthew and Luke address by introducing their own versions of the nativity story, with each adding a father figure in Joseph. These revisions, Pagels suggests, may have been an attempt to avoid the embarrassment of a questionable paternity. The most provocative element of Pagels' book is her discussion of ancient rumors about Jesus being the son of a Roman soldier named Panthera. While these accounts come from early detractors of Jesus, the name “Panthera” may refer to a real individual, a Roman soldier stationed in Palestine during the first century. Pagels acknowledges the uncertainty of this claim but argues that there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant consideration. She highlights a grave discovered in 1859 that belonged to a soldier named Tiberius Panthera, which adds some credence to these long-standing rumors. Pagels also addresses the possibility that Mary may have been a victim of rape. She notes the brutal Roman occupation of Galilee during the time of Jesus' birth, where soldiers frequently committed acts of violence and sexual assault against the local population. Pagels suggests that if Panthera was indeed involved in Jesus’ conception, it may have been a case of rape, reflecting the harsh realities of Roman rule at the time. Despite these historical investigations, Pagels does not dismiss the possibility of miracles but invites readers to consider how they are interpreted. She compares the concept of miracles to personal experiences that some might attribute to divine intervention, like a miraculous recovery from illness, while others might simply view them as strokes of luck. “Calling it a miracle interprets an event that others might see differently,” she explains. In the latter part of the conversation, Pagels touches on the broader role of Christianity in modern society. While she may not align with all aspects of conservative Christianity, she acknowledges the profound humanitarian work done by faith-based organizations. Pagels emphasizes the importance of recognizing and celebrating the positive impact of Christian faith, especially in charitable efforts around the world. Reflecting on her own faith journey, Pagels speaks of her transition from an evangelical Christian to a scholar who questions the literal truth of certain biblical stories. Yet, despite her intellectual skepticism, she continues to find deep spiritual meaning in the Christian tradition. The experience of encountering Christianity, she says, remains transformative. “The Christian message, as I experienced it, was transformational. It encouraged me to treat other people well and opened up a world of imagination and wonder,” she shares. In conclusion, Pagels calls for a respectful and open dialogue between faith and reason, urging both believers and skeptics to appreciate the rich tapestry of Christian tradition. For her, the virgin birth, like other miracles in the Gospels, can be seen as a story of profound spiritual significance, regardless of its historical accuracy. "Believe that a further shore / is reachable from here. / Believe in miracles,” she quotes, echoing the words of poet Seamus Heaney and encouraging us to embrace the mystery and wonder that faith can offer. Based on a report by NYT 2024-12-23

Jonathan Ganesh, a survivor of the 1996 IRA bombing in London's docklands, has called on Gerry Adams, the former president of Sinn Féin, to provide clarity about his alleged involvement with the IRA. The attack claimed the lives of two people and injured many others, including Ganesh, who was working as a security guard while pursuing law studies. Ganesh is among three individuals pursuing a civil case against Adams, seeking symbolic damages of £1 for "vindicatory purposes." The other plaintiffs are John Clark, a survivor of the Old Bailey bombing in 1973, and Barry Laycock, injured in the Manchester IRA bombing of 1996. Adams, who has consistently denied membership in the IRA, is expected to testify in his defense during a High Court hearing set for 2026. Speaking to BBC Radio Ulster’s Good Morning Ulster, Ganesh described the decision to initiate legal action as difficult but necessary. "It wasn't an easy decision to make," he said, "but we believe it was the right decision. It might be the last opportunity that victims of IRA terrorism have." When asked about his expectations from Adams during the court proceedings, Ganesh was unequivocal: "Just tell us the truth. Were you in the IRA or not in the IRA?" He emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, "We must have some sort of closure for the victims. The Troubles in Northern Ireland have left an awful legacy." Ganesh acknowledged that their civil case would not lead to criminal repercussions. "We appreciate they are not going to put anyone in prison," he noted. However, he expressed hope that Adams could provide answers due to his vocal support for the IRA during the conflict. "Because Mr. Adams was so vocal with his support for the IRA, we do believe he may be able to give us some answers. We just need to get that closure." Reflecting on the bombing's impact, Ganesh described the enduring pain it caused. "The injuries I suffered in the bomb have had a terrible impact on my life. I think it will always be there. It will always haunt me," he said. Yet, he considers himself fortunate to have survived. "I describe myself as one of the lucky ones," he added. Despite the physical and emotional scars, Ganesh revealed that he has chosen to forgive those responsible for the attack. "I have forgiven the people that hurt me and my two friends who were killed because forgiveness allows me to move forward with my life," he explained. Nonetheless, he maintained the necessity of accountability. "There must be some accountability," he insisted. Ganesh also underscored the importance of the Northern Ireland peace process, noting its success while highlighting unresolved issues. "The peace process has worked and we support that… but there is something left that we have to resolve," he concluded. For Ganesh and the other plaintiffs, the pursuit of truth and accountability remains an essential step toward healing the wounds left by decades of violence. Based on a report by BBC 2024-12-23

On April 20, 1999, Columbine High School became the scene of one of the most infamous school shootings in history. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, two teenagers clad in black trench coats, stormed the Colorado school armed with guns and homemade bombs, killing 12 students and a teacher while wounding over two dozen others before taking their own lives. At the time, it was the deadliest school shooting in American history, but its aftermath extended far beyond the initial tragedy. PATRICK IRELAND, better known as “the boy in the window.” He was shot 2x in the head, 1x in the leg and managed to crawl out a broken window. His famous escape was caught on camera. He survived. Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, responsible for killing 32 people in 2007, expressed a desire to "repeat Columbine" in his manifesto. Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza, who killed 26 people in 2012, was found to have an "obsession" with the Columbine perpetrators, even creating a Tumblr page in homage to them. Similarly, Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz extensively researched the massacre before his 2018 attack, which claimed 17 lives. The recent tragedy at a small Christian school in Madison, Wisconsin, is yet another grim example. Fifteen-year-old Natalie Rupnow opened fire, killing a teacher and a fellow student, and injuring six others before turning the gun on herself. Disturbingly, Rupnow was photographed wearing the same band t-shirt as Eric Harris, underscoring Columbine's enduring influence. Unlike targeted attacks, Columbine was characterized by indiscriminate violence. Harris and Klebold documented their plans in home videos and a manifesto, ensuring their story would persist. Their attack occurred at the dawn of the digital age and the 24-hour news cycle, amplifying its reach and embedding it into public consciousness. For many Columbiners, Harris and Klebold represent antiheroes. Despite misconceptions, neither was a loner or an outcast. However, their personas as misunderstood youths resonate with followers who identify as social misfits. This misplaced admiration has fueled a dangerous legacy, turning Columbine into a playbook for subsequent school shootings. In Germany, Robert Steinhäuser killed 16 people at his school in 2002 after studying Columbine online. Similarly, Finnish gunman Matti Saari killed 10 students in 2008, leaving behind chilling videos and notes that mirrored Harris and Klebold’s plans. This legacy has spurred investigators to warn about the dangers of glorifying such perpetrators. The digital age has not only preserved the Columbine killers' infamy but also provided a platform for vulnerable individuals to romanticize their actions. As tragedies like Rupnow’s continue to unfold, Columbine’s shadow looms large, a grim reminder of how violence can inspire further devastation when its perpetrators are mythologized rather than condemned. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-12-23

A Jamaican national convicted twice for heroin dealing has successfully avoided deportation from the UK, citing violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The 39-year-old man, whose identity has been withheld, argued that deportation would breach his right to family life and expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment in his homeland. The man came to the UK at the age of 16 in 2001 and overstayed his visa. Arrested in 2006 for immigration violations, he later faced convictions for drug offences, including an 18-month sentence in 2011 and a 30-month sentence in 2020 for dealing heroin. Despite his criminal record, his appeal against deportation has prompted the case to be reconsidered by an upper tribunal. The Jamaican claimed to have suffered abuse in his childhood and argued that returning to Jamaica would endanger his safety and well-being. He also stated that he was a victim of trafficking in his home country before migrating to the UK. The upper tribunal ruled that the initial hearing failed to account for all the evidence and denied him a fair trial by proceeding in his absence, despite his claim of illness. The Home Office had previously served the man with a deportation order in 2020, describing him as a “danger to the community” due to his repeated involvement in serious drug offences. However, under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, the man contended that deportation would violate his right to family life and subject him to potential harm in Jamaica. The decision has sparked criticism, with many calling for a reassessment of the UK's relationship with the ECHR. The case follows a similar controversy involving a Turkish drug dealer who avoided deportation after arguing that it would violate his human rights. The 70-year-old Turkish man, also granted anonymity, had been jailed for 16 years for plotting to distribute heroin across the UK. He claimed persecution as an Alevi Kurd if deported to Turkey, despite evidence of multiple trips back to his homeland without incident. The UN Refugee Agency supported the Turkish man’s claim, despite the Home Office’s stance that his continued presence was not in the public interest. Critics argue that cases like these undermine public confidence in immigration enforcement and the justice system. The Jamaican man’s case will now be reconsidered, raising questions about the balance between human rights protections and public safety. While the upper tribunal’s ruling emphasized procedural fairness, critics argue that the man’s criminal history and the danger he poses to the community should weigh heavily in any final decision. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-23

An American F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet was shot down over the Red Sea in what the US military described as a "friendly fire" incident. Both crew members ejected safely, with one sustaining minor injuries, according to US Central Command. The mishap occurred against the backdrop of heightened military activity in the region, including a series of US airstrikes targeting Houthi-operated missile storage sites and command facilities in Sanaa, the Yemeni capital. The strikes were part of an effort to counter escalating threats from the Iran-backed Houthi militants, who have launched attacks against US naval warships and merchant vessels in the Southern Red Sea, Bab al-Mandeb Strait, and the Gulf of Aden. Watch: "US CENTCOM targeted a Houthi missile storage facility and command center in Sana'a, Yemen – during the mission, two Navy pilots were forced to eject in a 'friendly fire' incident" Details remain unclear as to whether the fighter jet had been involved in the operations targeting the Houthis in Yemen. Earlier, US forces conducted strikes in Sanaa, focusing on degrading the militant group's operational capabilities. Central Command stated that the objective was to "disrupt and degrade Houthi operations, such as attacks against US Navy warships and merchant vessels in the Southern Red Sea, Bab al-Mandeb, and Gulf of Aden." In addition to the airstrikes, US military assets engaged in Red Sea operations successfully intercepted "multiple Houthi one-way attack uncrewed aerial vehicles, or drones, and an anti-ship cruise missile." These actions utilized various assets, including F/A-18 fighter jets. The heightened military engagements follow an incident reported by Israel’s military, in which a projectile launched from Yemen struck a park in Tel Aviv. According to Magen David Adom, Israel’s emergency medical service, 16 individuals were treated for injuries caused by shattered glass, and 14 others sustained minor injuries while rushing to protected areas. A Houthi spokesman claimed responsibility for the strike on Israel, stating that the group had used a hypersonic ballistic missile to target a military site. The recent escalation in the region underscores the mounting tensions and complexities in the Red Sea and surrounding areas. While the "friendly fire" incident highlights operational risks in high-stakes environments, the ongoing conflict with the Houthis continues to pose broader challenges for regional stability. Based on a report by BBC 2024-12-23

The execution of Ukrainian prisoners of war by Russian forces has become an increasingly grim reality since the start of the full-scale invasion. Among the harrowing cases is that of Oleksandr Matsievsky, a Ukrainian sniper captured by Russian troops during the first year of the conflict. A video later emerged showing Matsievsky smoking a cigarette near what appears to be a grave he was forced to dig. In his final moments, he defiantly declares, "Glory to Ukraine!" before being executed by gunfire. This tragic episode is one of many. Reports surfaced in October of this year that nine Ukrainian soldiers were executed by Russian forces in the Kursk region. Ukrainian prosecutors are investigating the case, which includes a chilling photograph showing half-naked bodies strewn on the ground. The photo provided enough detail for Ruslan Holubenko, a drone operator, to be identified by his grieving parents. "I recognized him by his underwear," his mother told local broadcaster Suspilne Chernihiv, recounting how she had purchased it for him before a trip. "I also knew that his shoulder had been shot through. You could see that in the picture." The scope of these atrocities is vast. Ukrainian prosecutors are also examining reports of beheadings and the brutal use of a sword to execute a soldier whose hands were tied behind his back. In another documented incident, a video showed 16 Ukrainian soldiers being lined up and gunned down with automatic fire after surrendering in a wooded area. Some of these executions were captured on video by Russian forces themselves, while others were observed by Ukrainian drones. These killings often occur in remote areas such as forests and fields, making it challenging to confirm precise locations. However, investigative efforts have verified some instances, such as a beheading, where victims were clearly wearing Ukrainian uniforms. The Ukrainian prosecution service has recorded at least 147 executions of Ukrainian prisoners of war by Russian forces since the invasion began, with 127 of these occurring in 2023 alone. "The upward trend is very clear, very obvious," stated Yuri Belousov, head of the War Department at the Ukrainian Prosecutor-General's Office. "Executions became systemic from November last year and have continued throughout all of this year. Sadly, their number has been particularly on the rise this summer and autumn. This tells us that they are not isolated cases. They are happening across vast areas and they have clear signs of being part of a policy—there is evidence that instructions to this effect are being issued." Rachel Denber, Deputy Director of the Europe and Central Asia Division at Human Rights Watch, emphasized the substantial evidence supporting these allegations. "Impunity plays a key part," she explained, adding that the Russian military faces significant questions regarding the apparent systemic nature of these crimes. As the war drags on, the rising number of executions underscores not only the brutality of the conflict but also the urgent need for accountability in the face of such widespread atrocities. Based on a report by BBC 2024-12-23

Another off topic troll post removed @Neeranam This is not about a "black guy from Liverpool stabbed some kids." Carry on and it will be more than posts removed.

An off topic troll post has been removed @Neeranam Lets hope this does not become another pattern of yours

A link to a site that needs email registration has been removed, it was irrelevant anyway as it was from 3rd Dec. The OP is from 21st Dec with the suspect charged now. @placnx

Another troll post making unsubstantiated claims and deragotory remarks has been removed

A post has been removed for making a libelous statement regarding the OP source. For the poster @Chomper Higgot information, the article is correct in that the BBC are not included in the 2024 years list of most complained about programmes. The BBC use a BBC first model which is explained in the link provided in the OP and which for ease of access is additionaly provided below. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/tvs-most-complained-about-programmes-of-2024-officially-revealed/ "Today’s figures don’t include complaints about programmes on the BBC. Under the BBC Charter, these are handled by the BBC in the first instance – this is known as the BBC first process." Please review the rules: 17. ASEAN NOW news team collects news articles from various recognised and reputable news sources. The articles may be consolidated from different sources and rewritten with AI assistance These news items are shared in our forums for members to stay informed and engaged. Our dedicated news team puts in the effort to deliver quality content, and we ask for your respect in return. Any disrespectful comments about our news articles or the content itself, such as calling it "clickbait" or “slow news day”, and criticising grammatical errors, will not be tolerated and appropriate action will be taken. Please note that republished articles may contain errors or opinions that do not reflect the views of ASEAN NOW. If you'd like to help us, and you see an error with an article, then please use the report function so that we can attend to it promptly.

A number of posts and replies have been removed all starting with claims by @stevenl that were not backed up with a credible link when asked and then a link provided did not back up the original claims. In the news section please provide a link when asked, so it does not clutter the topic with unnecessary bickering. Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to a mainstream media source.

Diane Abbott, known for her polarizing presence in British politics, once again captured public attention with a fiery Newsnight interview. At 71, the Mother of the House remains unyielding in her opinions, launching an unrelenting critique of Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer that resonated across political divides. Abbott’s grievances were numerous and scathing, underscoring her disdain for Starmer’s leadership style and political decisions. On the issue of compensating the “Waspi women”—the 3.8 million women born in the 1950s affected by state pension changes—Abbott remarked, “He doesn’t understand. That’s the problem. One of the things about Keir is he’s only been in the party for a short period of time. Then he got parachuted into Holborn and St Pancras. He didn’t even have to contest it. That was a safe seat, so he didn’t have to fight for that.” For Abbott, Starmer epitomizes what she detests in modern politics: a dispassionate, managerial approach coupled with an unwavering focus on electoral victories. She criticized his perceived lack of empathy and accused him of abandoning the socialist ideals that once characterized the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. Reflecting on Starmer’s leadership, Abbott noted, “He has no feel for politics. He might say he has a great feel for politics because he smashed people like [me], but he’s got no feel for politics and he doesn’t know how [the Waspi women] feel. He’s on that fat DPP pension. What does he know about ageing women who rely on the state pension? He really doesn’t know.” The jab at Starmer’s pension struck a nerve, highlighting a 2013 controversy when he received a special “tax unregistered” pension scheme upon stepping down as Director of Public Prosecutions. This history, coupled with Abbott’s remarks, amplified accusations of Labour’s willingness to break promises and embrace double standards under Starmer’s leadership. Beyond policy disagreements, Abbott touched on what she perceives as Starmer’s greatest weakness: a lack of emotional resonance with voters. While he champions the necessity of tough decisions, Abbott argued that his approach risks alienating the public. Without offering a hopeful and inspiring vision, she warned, “the unpopular decisions he says he is being forced to make will cause public confidence to erode, to borrow from Larkin, ‘like a coastal shelf.’” The tension between Abbott and Starmer reflects broader divisions within the Labour Party. Abbott’s ties to Jeremy Corbyn—dating back to their brief romantic relationship in the late 1970s—serve as a reminder of the ideological battles that have long plagued the party. Her fallout with Starmer deepened in 2023 during a disciplinary dispute over an article she wrote, leading to the removal of the Labour Whip. The subsequent backlash, including allegations of systemic racism within Labour’s leadership, further strained relations. Abbott’s eventual reinstatement in May 2024 marked a rare concession by Starmer, who had otherwise succeeded in consolidating his authority. Yet the feud between the two persists, with mutual disdain evident in their recent interactions in the House of Commons. In the political arena, few rivalries are as intense as those within the same party. Abbott’s critiques have cast a spotlight on Starmer’s leadership challenges, leaving the Labour leader grappling with the task of proving his effectiveness to an increasingly skeptical public. Whether he can rise above the fray remains an open question, but one thing is clear: Abbott’s roar will not be silenced easily. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-21

An 18-year-old George Mason University freshman, Abdullah Hassan, has been charged with conspiring to attack Israel’s general consulate in New York using explosive devices or other weapons. Federal prosecutors allege that Hassan, an Egyptian national, provided detailed instructions on how to construct explosives and suggested various attack methods, including a suicide vest, assault rifle, or a homemade bomb. Hassan faces one count of demonstrating how to manufacture an explosive with the intent to harm internationally protected individuals, a charge carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Additional charges may follow as the investigation develops. In the meantime, George Mason University has barred Hassan from its campus, and U.S. authorities have placed him in deportation proceedings, which are likely to be delayed until the resolution of his criminal case and any subsequent sentence. The FBI’s investigation revealed Hassan’s active engagement in online propaganda, which included posts praising Osama bin Laden and sharing antisemitic content. According to court documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, these activities were linked to Hassan through his phone and home IP address. Agents also traced his use of social media accounts, including activity from a campus IP address, on the same day they observed him at George Mason University. In November, Hassan reportedly sent an Islamic State-themed video to an undercover FBI informant posing as a terrorist sympathizer. The video called for violence against Jewish people. After receiving the video, the informant pledged loyalty to Hassan and agreed to carry out a mass-casualty attack under his guidance, according to federal filings. Hassan then initiated several days of planning, suggesting different methods of attack. He provided the informant with an instructional video on how to create an acetone-peroxide bomb, marked with the Islamic State logo, and discussed alternative methods such as using firearms or a suicide vest. This case comes amid heightened scrutiny of George Mason University’s response to pro-Palestinian activism on campus. Recently, two sisters who served as current and former presidents of the university’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine were banned from campus for four years. This decision followed a law enforcement search of their home, which uncovered guns, ammunition, and materials bearing slogans advocating violence against Jewish individuals. Public defender Cadence Mertz, representing Hassan, has declined to comment on the case. Meanwhile, federal officials emphasize that Hassan’s arrest is part of an ongoing effort to address domestic threats involving terrorism and antisemitism. As the legal proceedings continue, the case has underscored the importance of vigilance against extremism while sparking conversations about the intersection of activism, free speech, and public safety on college campuses. Based on a report by WP 2024-12-21

Craig Wright, an Australian computer scientist who falsely claimed to be the creator of bitcoin, was found in contempt of a London High Court order on Thursday. Wright received a suspended 12-month prison sentence for defying the court's directive to cease legal actions related to bitcoin, which has skyrocketed in value since its inception during the global financial crisis in 2008. Justice James Mellor ruled that Wright had committed “a clear breach” of a March order barring him from initiating or threatening further legal claims concerning bitcoin. Despite the prohibition, Wright issued claims totaling over £900 billion ($1.1 trillion) in October against various companies and individuals, alleging violations of intellectual property rights tied to the cryptocurrency. Lawyers representing the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), a coalition of technology and cryptocurrency firms, argued that Wright’s actions were a direct violation of the court’s ruling. In March, Mellor had determined that Wright was not the mysterious "Satoshi Nakamoto," the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin, nor the author of its original software. “It is beyond any reasonable doubt that Wright was in contempt of the court order,” Mellor stated in his judgment. Currently believed to reside in Indonesia or Singapore, Wright attended Thursday’s hearing via video link but was absent from the session the previous day, when COPA presented its case. He has announced plans to appeal the ruling. Wright’s association with bitcoin has been controversial since 2016, when he first claimed to be Nakamoto, the elusive figure behind the cryptocurrency. The origins of bitcoin trace back to 2008, during the height of the global financial crisis. A paper authored under the Nakamoto pseudonym outlined a groundbreaking system for transferring digital currency anonymously across the globe without relying on banks or national currencies. Nakamoto disappeared in 2011, leaving their identity shrouded in mystery. Bitcoin operates as a decentralized digital currency, with transactions recorded using blockchain technology. Unlike traditional money, bitcoin is not tied to any central authority, government, or banking institution. Its pioneering role has made it the most prominent cryptocurrency, though other digital assets like ethereum, tether, and dogecoin have also gained traction. Wright has faced accusations of attempting to capitalize on bitcoin’s massive increase in value. During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, bitcoin traded at just over $5,000. Recently, in the wake of political developments, including Donald Trump’s U.S. election victory and his support for cryptocurrencies, bitcoin briefly surpassed $100,000. However, its value remains volatile, trading at approximately $80,000 on Thursday—down nearly 20% in just two weeks. While Wright continues to assert his role as Nakamoto, the court’s ruling further discredits his claims and underscores the lingering enigma surrounding bitcoin’s true origins. Based on a report by AP 2024-12-21

During Joe Biden's presidency, the White House adopted unique measures to accommodate the challenges of managing an aging leader. With Biden being the oldest president in U.S. history, aides implemented strategies to adjust his schedule, interactions, and public appearances, sparking both scrutiny and defense of his administration’s practices. Jill Biden’s energetic campaigning during the 2020 primary already highlighted Joe Biden’s more measured pace. Michael LaRosa, Jill’s press secretary at the time, recalled being advised to avoid comparisons that might inadvertently underscore the contrast. "The more you talk her up, the more you make him look bad," LaRosa was told by Anthony Bernal, then Jill Biden's chief of staff. This early incident foreshadowed the careful management that would define the White House during Biden’s term. Meetings were streamlined and often conducted with senior aides acting as intermediaries for Biden. Figures like National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and senior counselor Steve Ricchetti frequently engaged with high-ranking officials and conveyed information back to the president. Some prominent Democrats, including Rep. Adam Smith, found it difficult to secure direct access to Biden during critical moments, such as before the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal. "I was begging them to set expectations low," Smith said, expressing his frustration over not being able to communicate directly with Biden until after the fallout. The White House was designed to shield the president not only from the public eye but also from some of his own cabinet members. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen experienced decreasing direct interactions with Biden, relying more on staff members to carry out key directives. Yet, cabinet officials like Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack defended the approach, saying, "You don’t always have to raise the issue with the president." Public appearances were equally controlled. Biden’s speeches were heavily scripted, and aides often guided him during events, repeating instructions like where to stand or how to exit a stage. Despite these measures, missteps persisted, such as during a debate with Donald Trump, where Biden struggled to articulate thoughts. This performance intensified concerns about his mental acuity, leading to Vice President Kamala Harris eventually replacing him on the Democratic ticket for the 2024 election—a move that ended in defeat for the party. Critics of Biden's presidency highlighted the insulation created by his close-knit team. Rep. Jim Himes noted a lack of personal contact with the president compared to previous administrations, stating, "I really had no personal contact with this president." Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Manchin observed Biden’s reliance on staff, remarking that the "eager beavers" around him took on much of the heavy lifting. White House spokesperson Andrew Bates defended Biden’s leadership, emphasizing his legislative achievements and attention to policy. Bates also countered claims of decline, asserting that the president actively sought external advice and was kept informed of significant issues. However, some concerns were hard to dismiss. Biden’s preparation for interviews, including one with special counsel Robert Hur, revealed inconsistencies. According to a person familiar with the sessions, Biden struggled to recall key details, although the White House attributed this to his tendency to "over-share." The final report from that investigation characterized Biden as a "sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory." Biden's campaign strategy reflected similar efforts to manage perceptions. At donor events, pre-approved questions were provided to participants, and aides worked diligently to ensure the president remained on script. Still, these precautions did not always prevent errors, frustrating supporters. Throughout his presidency, Biden’s inner circle maintained an intense focus on supporting and protecting him. This approach, while keeping his administration operational, also drew criticism for its heavy-handed nature and raised questions about the broader implications of leading with a diminished capacity. Despite these challenges, Biden’s aides emphasized that the president remained deeply engaged with his agenda, even as his unique style of governance shaped the White House’s operations. Based on a report by WSJ 2024-12-21

A fiery exchange between TalkTV presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer and Palestinian politician Mustafa Barghouti has been revealed as the most complained-about television event of the year, according to media regulator Ofcom. The interview, which delved into the contentious Hamas-Israel war, garnered an astonishing 17,366 complaints, almost doubling the highest number of complaints recorded for a single programme last year. By comparison, last year’s most complained-about moment involved Laurence Fox, who made widely criticized "misogynistic comments" about female journalist Ava Evans. That incident received 8,867 complaints, significantly fewer than the controversy surrounding Hartley-Brewer’s TalkTV segment. It is noteworthy that complaints directed at the BBC are not included in Ofcom’s figures, as the corporation handles such matters independently. The volume of complaints highlights the divisive nature of certain media discussions, particularly those centered on sensitive global issues. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-12-21