.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
0
Amnesty International’s Troubling Focus
Rarely has the disproportionate focus of certain activist organizations on Israel been as evident as it is today. Since the Syrian conflict erupted in 2011, over 500,000 people have lost their lives, with millions displaced as Islamist factions, Assad’s regime, and their Russian allies have left towns in ruins. Yet among many on the global left, the prevailing outrage seems directed not at the architects of this vast human tragedy but rather at Israel. One needs only to listen to their rhetoric: “Did you see what the IDF did in Khan Younis this week?” This singular focus is epitomized by Amnesty International’s recent report, *‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza*. Its publication coincided with Hama falling to a faction more extreme than al-Qaeda, yet Amnesty’s prioritization of Israel over Syria raises uncomfortable questions. Why is Israel’s war with Hamas labeled a “genocide” when other conflicts with far greater death tolls, like the Syrian war, escape such severe condemnation? Why is the Gaza conflict, with an alleged death toll of 44,000, branded a “modern-day holocaust,” while Syria’s half-million dead are discussed without invoking the same incendiary terms? Consider Yemen, where 400,000 people have perished, some through violence and others from famine, yet the word “genocide” remains conspicuously absent. In the Congo wars, millions died, but where were the Western protesters waving swastikas or branding their perpetrators as Nazis? It is difficult to escape the conclusion that terms like “genocide,” “Nazis,” and “Hitler” are disproportionately applied to Israel because their connotations are uniquely painful to the Jewish people. The actions of Amnesty UK earlier this year highlight this troubling pattern. In March, activists placed street signs reading “Genocide Avenue” outside the Israeli Embassy in London. Imagine how embassy staff—descendants of those who survived the Holocaust—felt seeing that term, a symbol of one of humanity’s darkest crimes, affixed outside their workplace. Notably, the Russian Embassy, mere blocks away, saw no such treatment, despite the atrocities in Ukraine. Amnesty reserves its most damning accusations for Israel alone. Even Amnesty’s language in its report betrays a certain unease. The organization criticizes the “narrow” definitions of genocide that exclude Israel’s actions and calls for broader interpretations that might encompass what it describes as Israel’s “genocidal” war. Yet this reveals a discomfort, a tacit acknowledgment that Israel is engaged in armed conflict—not genocide. Amnesty’s desire to stretch the definition of such a grave crime raises questions about its credibility and motives. This is not the first time Amnesty has taken aim at those defending themselves against oppressive forces. The organization has accused Kurdish fighters of “war crimes” during their battle against ISIS, condemned Ukrainians for “putting civilians in harm’s way” while resisting Russia’s aggression, and now criticizes Israel’s pursuit of Hamas, a group committed to its destruction. Amnesty’s tendency to scold those fighting against terror and tyranny often seems divorced from the grim realities of these struggles. Perhaps it is time for Amnesty International to reconsider its approach. Candlelit vigils and well-meaning reports are one thing, but relentless criticism of those battling extremist forces does little to support humanity’s progress. The people of Israel, Kurdistan, Ukraine, and beyond deserve better than to have their righteous struggles against oppression equated with the very evils they fight. Based on a report by The Spectator 2024-12-16 -
0
Watch: George Santos Hit with Coffee in Times Square Amid Ongoing Controversy
A video circulating on social media shows former New York congressman George Santos being doused with a cup of coffee in Times Square, sparking widespread reactions online. The clip begins with an unnamed man, wearing sunglasses, speaking into the camera as he follows Santos, remarking, “This guy has got [the] audacity to show his face.” Moments later, the man confronts Santos, throws the drink at him, and asks, “How do you like that?” Santos responds angrily, shouting, “What the f*** is wrong with you?” Santos, who has been embroiled in scandals throughout his brief political career, became only the sixth member of Congress in U.S. history to be expelled from the House when he was removed in December 2023. His expulsion followed a series of accusations and criminal charges that culminated in him pleading guilty to aggravated identity theft and wire fraud in August. These charges included stealing credit card information for personal use and submitting false information to the Federal Election Commission. Prosecutors revealed that Santos had defrauded his victims of more than $300,000, which he has been ordered to repay. Once seen as a rising star in the Republican Party, Santos faced intense scrutiny for fabricating much of his personal and professional background. His career unraveled as investigations uncovered a pattern of deceit and financial misconduct. His expulsion placed him in a small and infamous group of lawmakers removed from Congress, the other five being Confederates expelled during the Civil War. The coffee-throwing incident is just the latest chapter in Santos’ tumultuous public life. While it has fueled conversations about political accountability and public conduct, it also highlights the dangers of escalating tensions in political discourse. Even those critical of Santos have called for restraint, emphasizing that disagreements should not devolve into personal assaults. Based on a report by The Independent 2024-12-16 -
0
Manipulated Data in Gaza Casualty Reporting Exposed by Think Tank
A new report suggests that casualty figures from the Gaza conflict have been significantly inflated, raising concerns over how data has been used to influence global perceptions of the war. According to researchers, the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health has overstated the number of civilian deaths, allegedly including natural fatalities, misclassifying victims, and failing to differentiate between combatants and civilians. These inaccuracies, the report claims, are intended to portray Israel as deliberately targeting civilians. The analysis, conducted by the Henry Jackson Society, points to a series of statistical anomalies in the reported death toll. Official estimates from Gaza’s Ministry of Health claim that over 44,000 people have died since Israel began its military response to the Hamas attacks on October 7. However, the study argues that at least 17,000 of these deaths were Hamas fighters, citing Israeli and U.S. intelligence reports. It also highlights evidence of approximately 5,000 natural deaths being added to the casualty lists, including cancer patients who were later found still receiving treatment in hospitals. Other irregularities include adult victims being misclassified as children and male casualties being recorded as women. Researchers believe such misclassifications serve to inflate the perceived number of women and children killed, enhancing the narrative that civilians are disproportionately affected. Andrew Fox, the author of the report, stated, “This misclassification contributes to the narrative that civilian populations, particularly women and children, bear the brunt of the conflict, potentially influencing sentiment and media coverage.” The Henry Jackson Society also noted that casualty figures failed to distinguish between deaths caused by Israeli military actions and those resulting from misfired Hamas rockets or incidents during food aid distribution. The report criticizes international media outlets, including the BBC, The New York Times, and CNN, for uncritically repeating the figures provided by the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health. This, it argues, has fostered a distorted narrative that frames Israel as engaging in “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.” According to the researchers, such misreporting has shaped public opinion and international policymaking, with significant implications. The demographic analysis presented in the report paints a different picture from the official narrative. It reveals that the majority of fatalities are men aged 15-45, suggesting that a large proportion of the deceased are combatants rather than civilians. The data, however, is recorded through inconsistent and opaque methods, including hospital reports, family submissions via online forms, and media sources. The lack of verification, the report claims, allows for errors and deliberate manipulation. Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, commented on the findings, saying, “The manipulation of events and facts on the ground throughout this conflict confirms that a terrorist organisation like Hamas will distort the truth to further their own aims. The media must be alert to this and report information and events taking place in a responsible and balanced way.” The report underscores the consequences of these alleged distortions, which extend beyond statistical inaccuracies. By presenting an exaggerated civilian death toll, the casualty figures amplify international criticism of Israel while obscuring the combatant status of many victims. This skewed narrative risks deepening public misunderstandings of the conflict and influencing international policies based on manipulated data. The findings call for greater scrutiny of casualty reporting in conflict zones and highlight the role of media in ensuring balanced and accurate coverage. Full report: https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/HJS-Questionable-Counting-–-Hamas-Report-web.pdf Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-16 Related Topics: Discrepancies in Gaza Casualty Figures: An Analysis of Hamas Data By Associated Press UN Cuts Death of Women and Children in Gaza by Half Hamas admits one-third of its data on Gazan deaths is ‘incomplete’ Scrutiny Over Gaza Death Toll Figures: UK Statistics Watchdog Investigates Hamas's Data How the Gaza Ministry of Health Fakes Casualty Numbers -
0
UK Pledges Additional £13m to UNRWA Amid Controversy Over Alleged Terrorist Ties
The United Kingdom has pledged an additional £13 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the main provider of aid to Palestinian refugees, despite allegations that some of its staff were involved in the October 7 attacks on Israel. This new funding supplements the £21 million already committed earlier this year, signaling a strong show of support for the agency despite its contentious status with Israel. The announcement followed a meeting between Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini on Wednesday. Downing Street stated that the funds would be used to bolster essential services for Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of the region. During the meeting, Sir Keir expressed condolences for the UNRWA staff members killed in the ongoing conflict and emphasized the need for enhanced protections for aid workers operating in Gaza. Both leaders also reiterated their calls for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and increased humanitarian aid to alleviate the growing crisis in the region. The decision to continue supporting UNRWA highlights the UK’s commitment to addressing humanitarian needs despite the agency’s ban from operating in Israeli-controlled areas. The Israeli government has long accused UNRWA of harboring ties to terrorist groups, with the October 7 attack further fueling these allegations. The funding pledge also follows a previous announcement by Foreign Secretary David Lammy in July, when the UK resumed financial support for UNRWA after a pause under the Conservative government. At the time, the agency faced accusations that some of its staff had been complicit in terrorist activities, leading to heightened scrutiny of its operations. Critics argue that the UK’s renewed support undermines efforts to hold UNRWA accountable for its alleged links to violence. However, proponents of the funding stress that the aid is essential to providing healthcare, education, and other vital services to millions of Palestinian refugees living under increasingly dire conditions. As the conflict in Gaza continues, the UK’s decision underscores the tension between humanitarian priorities and concerns over security and accountability. The additional funding, though controversial, reaffirms Britain’s position as a key supporter of UNRWA’s work in one of the world’s most volatile regions. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-16 -
0
Democratic lawmakers Calls Grow to Limit Trump's Unilateral Authority over Nuclear Weapons
President Joe Biden faces mounting pressure from Democratic lawmakers to curb the president's unilateral authority over nuclear weapons—a move spurred by concerns about Donald Trump potentially regaining the presidency. On Thursday, Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Representative Ted Lieu of California sent a letter urging Biden to overhaul the longstanding policy that grants the sitting president sole authority to authorize nuclear strikes. Currently, the U.S. policy, as outlined in a Congressional Research Service report from May, allows the president to independently order nuclear weapon use as part of their constitutional role as commander in chief. While the president may seek advice from military leaders, those leaders are obligated to carry out the orders once issued. In their letter, Markey and Lieu emphasized the urgency of revisiting this policy, calling it "dangerous." "As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress' constitutional role is respected and fulfilled," they wrote. The Democratic lawmakers proposed a significant shift: requiring congressional approval before a president can initiate a nuclear strike. They argued that such a change would serve as a critical safeguard against impulsive decisions, particularly in times of international tension. "We urge you to announce that henceforth it will be the policy of the United States that it will not initiate a nuclear first strike without express authorization from Congress," their letter stated. However, they acknowledged that in the event of a nuclear attack on the U.S., the president would retain the ability to respond unilaterally. Markey and Lieu framed this policy revision as an opportunity for Biden to solidify his presidential legacy. "Such a move could become an important part of your legacy," they wrote, appealing to the president's authority to enact a defining change. Concerns about Trump’s stance on nuclear weapons have persisted among Democrats since his first term in office. Trump has been vocal about his readiness to employ nuclear power, often invoking provocative rhetoric. In January 2018, he responded to a statement by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un by tweeting, "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.' Will someone from his depleted and food-starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!" These concerns are not one-sided. Republicans and Trump himself have accused Biden and the Democrats of escalating nuclear tensions. During a campaign rally in Pennsylvania in September, Trump warned of imminent global conflict, stating, "We're heading into World War III territory, and because of the power of weapons, nuclear weapons in particular." As debate over nuclear authority intensifies, the stakes remain high. Neither the White House nor Trump’s team has yet commented on the Democratic lawmakers' proposals. However, as the U.S. approaches the 2024 presidential election, the issue is likely to remain a focal point in discussions about national security and executive power. Based on a report by Newsweek 2024-12-16 -
0
ABC News Settles Defamation Lawsuit with Trump for $15 Million
ABC News has agreed to a $15 million settlement with President-elect Donald Trump to resolve a defamation lawsuit stemming from false statements made by its prominent anchor, George Stephanopoulos. The case arose after Stephanopoulos repeatedly claimed during a March 10 interview that Trump had been found "liable for rape," a statement that was untrue. The controversy began when Stephanopoulos questioned South Carolina Republican congresswoman Nancy Mace about her endorsement of Trump. During the broadcast, he asserted, “judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape,” repeating the claim a total of ten times throughout the segment. This led to swift legal action from Trump, who argued that the false statements were damaging to his reputation. As part of the settlement, ABC News will pay $15 million as a charitable contribution to establish a "Presidential foundation and museum" in Trump’s name. The settlement document states that the foundation will follow the tradition of similar institutions created by past U.S. Presidents. Additionally, the network agreed to cover $1 million of Trump’s legal fees incurred during the case. The dispute had escalated earlier this year when a federal magistrate judge ordered both Trump and Stephanopoulos to provide sworn depositions regarding the claims. However, the settlement has now precluded the need for further legal proceedings or testimony. Trump's legal challenges against media outlets are not new. In another ongoing case, he has sued CBS, alleging “deceptive conduct” in an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. In previous years, courts dismissed his defamation lawsuits against CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, where he claimed bias and misrepresentation. In one prominent instance in 2023, a judge rejected his case against CNN, which alleged the network had drawn comparisons between Trump and Adolf Hitler. The ABC News settlement, however, marks a significant outcome for Trump, whose legal battles with major media outlets often draw widespread attention. It also highlights the ongoing tension between the former president and prominent news organizations, which he frequently accuses of unfair treatment. The resolution of the case underscores the importance of accuracy in reporting, especially when discussing high-profile figures. For Trump, the settlement represents not only a legal victory but also an opportunity to establish a lasting legacy through the proposed Presidential foundation. For ABC News, it serves as a reminder of the potential consequences of broadcasting unverified or erroneous claims. Based on a report by BBC 2024-12-16 -
1
Thaksin Accuses Absent Cabinet Members of Disloyalty, Demands Resignations
I do hope he's not neglecting his grandchildren. -
0
American "Pilgrim" Freed from Syrian Prison Flies out of Syria
Travis Timmerman, an American citizen who had been imprisoned in Syria, has been flown to safety after his release by rebel forces earlier this week, a U.S. official confirmed on Friday. The official, speaking anonymously, stated that Timmerman had been transferred to Jordan, where he is now under the care of State Department officials. The American’s disappearance had been a source of distress for his family. His parents revealed that he went missing in June, leaving them with no information about his whereabouts for months. His release came shortly after Syrian rebels overthrew Assad's control in parts of the country, leading to a reshuffling of local power dynamics. In a statement to the media, Timmerman identified himself and dispelled initial rumors on social media suggesting he might be Austin Tice, an American journalist who disappeared in Syria in 2012. Instead, Timmerman shared that he had been held in Syria for seven months after crossing into the country illegally from Lebanon. Referring to himself as a "pilgrim," he explained his detention and eventual release during an interview with CBS News. "I was trying to find my way out after being released from prison earlier this week," Timmerman said, describing his ordeal. His physical condition reflected his difficult experience: pale and bearing a long, unkempt beard. A video posted on Thursday showed him being introduced in Arabic as an American, marking the first visual confirmation of his identity since his disappearance. The White House has indicated that it had no prior knowledge of Timmerman's presence in Syria. His unexpected reemergence underscores the ongoing complexities of the Syrian conflict and the challenges of accounting for foreign nationals in the war-torn region. For now, Timmerman’s safe transfer to Jordan represents a rare moment of relief amid a backdrop of uncertainty. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-14
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now