Uk Settlement Visa Success?
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
4
-
5
-
-
-
Latest posts...
-
0
Ukraine’s Drone Strike Sends a Sobering Signal to the U.S.
Ukraine’s Drone Strike Sends a Sobering Signal to the U.S. Ukraine’s recent drone strike on Russian military targets wasn’t just a battlefield victory—it was a wake-up call. While details of the operation remain sparse, what’s clear is that Kyiv pulled off a high-impact mission using relatively low-cost technology. By flying drones across the border to destroy expensive Russian assets, Ukraine showcased not only its ingenuity but also the vulnerability of even the most advanced militaries to unconventional, asymmetric threats. For the United States, the implications are unsettling. If Ukraine could inflict damage on Russia’s strategic forces with improvised drones, it raises uncomfortable questions about America’s own exposure. As military analyst Fred Kagan starkly put it: “Could those have been B-2s at the hands of Iranian drones flying out of containers, let alone Chinese?” The U.S. strategic bomber fleet is a fraction of what it was during the Cold War, and it’s concentrated at a few key bases. Photos circulating online show lines of B-52s parked at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana—a tempting target in any future conflict. America’s reliance on vulnerable, high-value military assets—fighters, bombers, and aircraft carriers among them—highlights a strategic weakness that adversaries could exploit. This is where former President Trump’s proposed Golden Dome missile-defense initiative, often dismissed in the media as a costly fantasy, deserves reconsideration. While critics focus on its ambitions for space-based interceptors, the real need goes far beyond that. The U.S. faces a diverse and growing array of threats, from ballistic and cruise missiles to drones and surveillance balloons. The bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission warned in 2023 that the U.S. must strengthen its integrated air and missile defenses to guard against “coercive attacks” from peer adversaries. These don’t have to involve nuclear weapons. In a Taiwan crisis, for example, Xi Jinping could threaten to knock out American assets like the F-22s based in Alaska, hinting that any U.S. intervention might come at a steep cost. That’s why missile defense must be layered and multifaceted—combining cutting-edge innovations with proven systems like the Patriot. Israel’s recent success using lasers to shoot down drones shows what’s possible when technological prowess is applied to urgent national defense challenges. Trump was right to prioritize missile defense during his presidency, and his efforts may prove prescient as the security landscape shifts. Yet, as a nation, the U.S. has grown complacent. The Cold War’s sense of strategic vulnerability has faded. A report by Thomas Shugart and Timothy Walton at the Hudson Institute underscores this point. It warns that American airfields, especially in the Western Pacific, are dangerously exposed. The Air Force, for instance, has considered using open-air shelters—“akin to sunshades”—to house the new B-21 bomber. Shugart and Walton criticize this move as perilous: “Not building approximately $30 million hardened aircraft shelters for over-$600 million B-21 bombers is an unwise decision that could endanger the US’s ability to strike globally.” Such infrastructure is often sidelined in defense budgets that prioritize weapons systems over protective measures. But this is shortsighted. Sustained investment is required to ensure true readiness. The $25 billion allocated to Golden Dome in Congress is a start, but a national missile defense architecture can’t be built on one-time infusions. Without a long-term commitment, the system will fall short of what’s needed. This new era demands not only weapons and deterrence but also public awareness. Political leaders should level with Americans about these vulnerabilities instead of repeating the mantra that the U.S. military is the strongest it has ever been. It isn’t. Modern threats have evolved, and so must the national mindset. Ukraine’s drone strike didn’t just destroy Russian bombers—it also delivered a jarring reminder to the United States: in the next war, everyone might be on the front lines. It’s time to stop assuming the oceans will shield America and start preparing for a world in which they no longer do. Adapted by ASEAN Now from WSJ 2025-06-10 -
0
Deliberate Pentagon Disinformation Engineered America’s UFO Obsession
A Pentagon investigation into long-standing UFO conspiracy theories has revealed an unsettling irony: many of the myths surrounding extraterrestrial technology were deliberately sown by the U.S. military itself. What began as Cold War-era national security strategy has, over the decades, evolved into a powerful force of public paranoia—one the government now finds difficult to control, let alone dispel. The origins of this disinformation stretch back to the 1980s, when an Air Force colonel handed over doctored photos of supposed flying saucers to a bar owner near Area 51. These images, later confirmed to be fake by the same officer in 2023, were a strategic ploy. The Air Force was secretly developing stealth aircraft like the F-117 at the site, and they reasoned it was safer for civilians to believe in aliens than glimpse top-secret military technology. “Better that they believe it came from Andromeda,” the officer said. This was just one of several revelations uncovered during a congressionally mandated probe led by the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). The findings were summarized in a 2024 Defense Department report that, despite its goal of debunking conspiracy theories, strategically omitted details that would have implicated the Pentagon in actively promoting them. According to a Wall Street Journal investigation, the omissions were not accidental. The Air Force, in particular, pushed to exclude evidence that could compromise classified programs or careers. Sean Kirkpatrick, a veteran intelligence scientist, was tapped in 2022 to lead AARO. “The undersecretary and I put together a shortlist of who could do it, and you’re at the top,” he was told. He dryly replied, “Or am I the only one stupid enough to say, ‘yes?’” Kirkpatrick’s team operated from an unmarked office near the Pentagon and was tasked with two primary missions: analyzing modern reports of unidentified phenomena and investigating historical claims dating back to 1945. What the team found was part mystery, part farce. One key discovery involved a hazing ritual that had persisted for decades. New commanders of the Air Force’s most secret programs were shown fake documents describing a program called Yankee Blue, which allegedly aimed to reverse-engineer alien spacecraft. Many officers took the lie to heart, signing NDAs and believing for years that they had been entrusted with an intergalactic secret. “We know it went on for decades. We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of people,” a Pentagon official told Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines. “These men signed NDAs. They thought it was real.” Kirkpatrick also investigated a famous 1967 incident in Montana, where former Air Force captain Robert Salas reported a glowing object hovering above a nuclear missile facility, after which all ten missiles went offline. Decades later, AARO determined that the incident was likely caused by an electromagnetic pulse from a top-secret military device designed to test the vulnerability of U.S. nuclear systems—not an alien spacecraft. Still, Salas remains convinced of a government cover-up. “There is a gigantic coverup, not only by the Air Force, but every other federal agency that has cognizance of this subject,” he said. Despite the Defense Department’s efforts to clarify the record, the damage may already be done. The secrecy that once protected national security now fuels public distrust. Lawmakers have formed UAP-focused caucuses, and conspiracy theories persist with renewed vigor. According to Defense Department spokeswoman Sue Gough, “The department is committed to releasing a second volume of its Historical Record Report, to include AARO’s findings on reports of potential pranks and inauthentic materials.” What was once disinformation to shield Cold War secrets has become embedded in American culture—and increasingly, in the minds of the very officials sworn to uphold the truth. Adapted by ASEAN Now from WSJ 2025-06-10 -
0
Law Firm Defending Hamas Faces Watchdog Scrutiny Amid Political Backlash
Law Firm Defending Hamas Faces Watchdog Scrutiny Amid Political Backlash A British law firm campaigning to remove Hamas from the UK’s list of proscribed terrorist organisations is under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), following a referral by a senior political figure. Riverway Law, which attracted national attention in April for its controversial legal challenge, is now being scrutinised over potential breaches of professional and sanctions regulations. Riverway Law submitted a 106-page application to the Home Office, urging the government to lift the proscription on Hamas. The firm, led by solicitor Fahad Ansari, argued that the group poses “no threat to the UK people” and that its continued classification as a terrorist organisation infringes on freedom of speech, as protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. The appeal was accompanied by a promotional video shared on social media. Just days after this submission, Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, reported the firm to the SRA. In his letter, he warned of the implications for public trust in the legal profession. “There is a clear need to uphold public confidence in the legal profession and to ensure rigorous enforcement of the UK sanctions regime,” Jenrick wrote. He questioned whether Riverway Law had met its legal obligations under UK sanctions law, the SRA’s own guidance, and general professional standards. Jenrick also pointed to a series of controversial social media posts by Ansari, who is both the director of Riverway Law and the leading lawyer in the Hamas appeal. These posts included statements such as referring to Hamas as a “legitimate resistance movement” and accusing the UK of supporting “Israeli genocide.” In another post from June, Ansari said: “If you believe genocidal Israel is the most moral army in the world, then you should view Hamas as an army of angels.” Additional comments praised “courageous Palestinian mujahideen” and dismissed international courts as “hopeless.” The SRA has not yet reached any conclusions, and its investigation is believed to be in its early stages. Nevertheless, Jenrick welcomed the development. “Our sanctions regime is pointless if it isn’t enforced,” he told The Telegraph. “Ansari is a shameless apologist who argues Hamas poses no threat to the British people. What nonsense. This evil death cult threatens free people everywhere.” Ansari, for his part, has staunchly defended the actions of his firm. He said Riverway took great care to ensure compliance with UK law. “We were in contact with OFSI [the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation], external counsel and others who had represented sanctioned organisation[s], to ensure that we did not breach our duties under the sanctions regime,” he stated. Ansari remains “confident” that the SRA will find no fault with the firm’s conduct. The appeal being mounted by Riverway is thought to be unprecedented in the UK. The legal effort is reportedly led by Mousa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official in charge of its international relations and legal matters. The submission claims that the British ban on Hamas is disproportionate and unnecessary, asserting that Hamas does not pose a direct threat to UK citizens. While the case continues to generate fierce political and public debate, the SRA’s decision could set a significant precedent regarding the limits of legal advocacy in cases involving organisations subject to international sanctions. Related Topics: Robert Jenrick Urges Solicitors’ Watchdog to Investigate Hamas Legal Challenge Hamas Challenges UK Terror Ban, Citing Human Rights and Peace Efforts The immigration lawyer fighting to legalise Hamas Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-06-10 -
0
Pride Flags Removed from House of Lords Canteen After Peer’s Complaint
Pride Flags Removed from House of Lords Canteen After Peer’s Complaint The House of Lords has removed a set of Pride flags from its River Restaurant following a complaint from Baroness Emma Nicholson, a Conservative peer known for her gender-critical stance. The flags, which included the modern “Progress Pride” design, were put up at the start of June to mark the beginning of Pride Month. However, their presence quickly sparked controversy among members of the Lords. The Progress Pride flag includes the traditional rainbow colours along with a chevron featuring pink, blue, and white stripes representing the transgender community, as well as a yellow triangle with a purple circle symbolising intersex individuals. For some, this flag has become a flashpoint in debates over gender identity and the merging of trans rights with broader LGBTQ+ rights. Critics often argue for a separation of issues, referring to the slogan “LGB without the T.” Baroness Nicholson took to social media platform X to share photos of the flags on display above breakfast offerings at the restaurant. After receiving support online, she submitted a complaint to the Lord Speaker’s Office. By Friday afternoon, the decorations had been removed. "The superb River Restaurant in the House of Lords has had the decorations that I pictured removed," she tweeted. "The food remains as stunning as before. I am most grateful to the Lord Speaker for his swift and thoughtful response to my request. I respect all people in all walks of life always.” Baroness Nicholson, who has a history of voting against LGBTQ+ rights – including her support for Section 28 and opposition to gay marriage – originally served as a Conservative MP before defecting to the Liberal Democrats in the 1990s. She later returned to the Conservative Party in 2016. Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at the campaign group Sex Matters, supported the removal, saying, “The baby blue and pink of trans activism, which features in the flag, signals support for a harmful fringe ideology that justifies a wide range of human rights abuses, including puberty blockers for minors, surgeries that leave people sterile, the placement of rapists in women’s prisons, and the destruction of single-sex services and spaces.” Joyce added that the decision to display the flag was “provocative and inappropriate” and called its removal “reassuring.” Notably, the House of Commons canteen did not display similar flags. A spokesperson for the House of Lords clarified the removal by stating, “Informal decorations were put up locally to mark the beginning of Pride month. These were taken down at an appropriate point due to their unofficial nature.” They also specified that the Lord Speaker, Lord McFall, did not personally intervene in the matter. The incident sparked debate on social media, with many expressing discomfort over the flag’s placement. User Sean Ako, identifying as a gay man, commented, “Can’t I have my breakfast in peace without having a flag waved in my face? I don’t need to be celebrated first thing in the morning. I need to be caffeinated.” Another user, Clean City Bird, added, “Honestly, what has the progress flag or same-sex attraction got to do with having breakfast? Do you get a bigger portion if you state your pronouns while they plate your beans?” Margaret Kearney echoed similar sentiments, writing, “Think about the flags as you eat breakfast or have tea and toast. For some it could be a turn-off to eat anything.” While the removal of the Pride flags satisfied some, it has also highlighted the deep divisions within public institutions over how, and whether, to display symbols of LGBTQ+ solidarity. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-06-10 -
9
THAILAND LIVE Thailand Live Tuesday 10 June 2025
Pita Blasts Thai FM Maris, Urges Thai-Cambodia Talks at Asean Forum Picture courtesy of Amarin TV In an unexpected turn of events, former Move Forward leader Pita Limjaroenrat fired back at Thailand’s Foreign Minister Maris Sangiampongsa today. Criticising Maris for advocating actions "outside the rules," Pita called for utilising the Asean Regional Forum to address the Thai-Cambodian tensions. Full story: https://aseannow.com/topic/1363154-pita-blasts-thai-fm-maris-urges-thai-cambodia-talks-at-asean-forum/ -
85
-
-
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