.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
Ssr Warm Up Ride To Kanchanaburi And Sangkhla Buri This Weekend, February 28th-march 1st
Do you want to stay in Kanchanaburi or Sangkhla Buri or someplace else?
10 members have voted
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
1
Trump’s Transition Team Eyes Swift WHO Exit, Sparking Global Health Concerns
Potential? There's nothing potential about Jan 20, it's carved in stone. -
1
Trump’s Transition Team Eyes Swift WHO Exit, Sparking Global Health Concerns
Donald Trump’s transition team is reportedly preparing to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) on the very first day of his potential new administration. The move, described as “catastrophic” by global health experts, would strip the WHO of its largest financial contributor, potentially crippling its ability to respond to international health crises. The decision to leave the WHO would coincide with the president-elect’s January 20 inauguration, according to experts briefed on the plans. Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health at Georgetown Law, warned of the profound consequences of such an action. “America is going to leave a huge vacuum in global health financing and leadership. I see no one that is going to fill the breach,” he said, adding that the abrupt withdrawal “on day one” would significantly weaken global health systems. The United States currently provides about 16% of the WHO’s funding, making it the organization’s largest single donor. Without these contributions, the WHO would face severe challenges in addressing public health emergencies such as pandemics, vaccine distribution, and other critical global health issues. This isn’t the first time Trump has targeted the WHO. In 2020, during his presidency, he initiated a withdrawal process, accusing the organization of being under China’s influence amid the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the process was never completed, and President Joe Biden reestablished ties with the WHO on his first day in office in 2021. Ashish Jha, Biden’s former COVID-19 response coordinator and current dean of Brown University’s school of public health, highlighted the symbolic importance of a rapid withdrawal. “The transition team wants Trump to withdraw on the first day because of the ‘symbolism’ of reversing Biden’s own inauguration-day move,” he explained. Jha noted that while some members of Trump’s team advocate reforming the WHO from within, others are determined to sever ties entirely, and this latter faction appears to be prevailing. Jha emphasized the importance of the WHO in fostering global cooperation during health emergencies, including vaccine development and distribution. “If you’re not engaged in these institutions, you do not have ears to the ground when the next outbreak happens,” he warned. Gostin echoed these concerns, predicting “very lean years for the WHO where it will struggle to respond to health emergencies and will have to reduce its scientific staff considerably.” He also cautioned that European nations would be unlikely to fill the funding gap, potentially allowing China to exert greater influence within the organization. “It would not be a smart move as withdrawal would cede leadership to China,” he said. While Trump’s transition team has not officially commented on the proposed withdrawal, a source familiar with the plans dismissed the relevance of the WHO, stating, “The same WHO that we left in the first administration? It seems like we wouldn’t much care what they have to say.” As the global community awaits further clarity, the prospect of the U.S. abandoning the WHO raises urgent questions about the future of global health cooperation and leadership during a time when robust international collaboration is more critical than ever. Based on a report by Financial Times 2024-12-24 -
0
Mike Waltz Warns Hostage-Takers: “Bullet in Your Damn Forehead”
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 -
0
60 Minutes Special. Inside Mossad's Secret Weapon: The Pager Plot That Shocked Hezbollah
On September 17, after nearly a year of escalating conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel's Mossad executed one of the most daring counterintelligence operations in history: the pager plot. This modern-day Trojan horse involved the creation of explosive-laden pagers, tricking Hezbollah fighters into carrying these devices unknowingly. CBS 60 minutes interviewed two recently retired senior (alleged) Mossad agents with leading roles in the "pager and walkie-talkie" operation which decimated Hezbollah. Watch this fascinating interview! Gabriel described rigorous testing to ensure minimal collateral damage, with the walkie-talkies doubling as explosive devices. These earlier experiments paved the way for the explosive pager, a seemingly innocuous communication device. The Mossad team created a prototype pager with unique features, such as dustproofing, waterproofing, and extended battery life, marketing it through fake advertisements and shell companies. "We make advertising movies and brochures, and we put it on the internet. And—it became—the best product in the beeper area in the world," Gabriel recounted. Using these tactics, Mossad duped Hezbollah into adopting the devices. Gabriel recalled the elaborate scheme: "When they are buying from us, they have zero clue that they are buying from the Mossad. We make like 'Truman Show,' everything is controlled by us behind the scene." By September 2024, Hezbollah had unknowingly distributed 5,000 of these pagers among their members. When suspicions arose, Mossad acted swiftly. On September 17, pagers began beeping across Lebanon with an innocuous message instructing users to press two buttons—triggering the explosives. "That was the whole point," Gabriel explained, emphasizing the psychological and physical impact of the operation. The explosions caused widespread chaos, killing about 30 people, including two children, and injuring thousands. Mossad followed up by detonating dormant walkie-talkies, creating further havoc. Gabriel clarified the operation's goal: "The aim wasn't killing Hezbollah terrorists. If he's just dead, so he's dead. But if he's wounded, you have to take him to the hospital, take care of him. You need to invest money and efforts." The psychological toll was immense, with Lebanese citizens afraid to use everyday items like air conditioners, fearing they might explode. "The day after the pagers exploded, people were afraid to turn on the air conditioners in Lebanon because they were afraid that they would explode," Michael revealed, describing the operation as part of a larger psychological war. While the pager plot severely weakened Hezbollah, Mossad agents acknowledge the challenges of maintaining Israel’s moral reputation. Gabriel admitted, "First, you have to defend your people not being killed by the thousands. And then the reputation." Despite the operation's success, its rippling effects are still unfolding. The psychological blow dealt to Hezbollah also isolated Hamas, leaving them vulnerable. "They are completely isolated now," Michael noted, expressing hope for its influence on broader conflicts. While Mossad has moved on to new methods, the pager plot remains a testament to their ingenuity and relentless pursuit of Israel's security. Based on a report by CBS 2024-12-24 -
0
Trump Calls for Return of Panama Canal Over "Unfair" Transit Rates
President-elect Donald Trump has issued a bold ultimatum to Panamanian authorities: either reduce transit fees for U.S. ships using the Panama Canal or relinquish control of the canal back to the United States. His remarks, shared in a flurry of posts on Truth Social, have reignited debates over the canal's role in international trade and sovereignty. Trump's grievances centered on what he described as "unfair and injudicious" treatment of American naval and commercial vessels passing through the canal. In his posts, he criticized previous U.S. administrations for ceding control of the strategic waterway to Panama in 1999, calling the move a "token of cooperation" that had been misused. "If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question," he stated. Panama's President, Jose Raúl Mulino, swiftly rejected Trump’s demands, reaffirming the nation's sovereignty over the canal. "The sovereignty and independence of our country are not negotiable," Mulino declared in a video response posted on social media. He also emphasized the canal's global importance, describing it as a "mission to serve humanity and its commerce" and a cornerstone of Panama's self-determination. Trump fired back, quoting Mulino’s response and cryptically adding, "We'll see about that!" He later posted an image of the American flag flying over the canal with the caption, "Welcome to the United States Canal!" The controversy has reignited discussions about the canal's historical significance and its place in global trade. Originally built and controlled by the United States after an agreement with Panama in 1904, the canal was handed over to full Panamanian control at the end of 1999 under a treaty signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. While this agreement guaranteed the canal's neutrality, some critics have viewed the transition as a symbol of colonialism’s lingering legacy. Today, the Panama Canal remains a critical artery for international commerce, with around 10,000 ships transiting annually. Approximately 70% of those ships are bound for or departing from U.S. ports, representing about 2.5% of global maritime trade. However, recent droughts have limited capacity and driven up transit fees, which Trump called "ridiculous" and "highly unfair" during a speech at the Turning Point Action Conference in Phoenix, Arizona. Adding to the complexity is China’s growing influence in the canal’s operations. Beijing has invested heavily in the Canal Zone in recent years, raising alarms about its potential impact on the waterway’s neutrality. The Center for Strategic and International Studies warned in 2021 of a "key decision point" for U.S. interests in the region, while the U.S. ambassador to Panama has reportedly cautioned against forcing the nation into choosing between the U.S. and China. Trump’s comments have drawn sharp criticism from Panamanian officials. National Assembly member Manuel Alberto Samaniego Rodriguez took to social media, calling Trump’s remarks "regrettable" and pledging to defend Panama’s sovereignty "with his life if necessary." As the debate unfolds, the Panama Canal remains a focal point of global trade and diplomacy, symbolizing both opportunity and contention in a shifting geopolitical landscape. Based on a report by AXIOS 2024-12-24 -
0
Britain’s Sharia Courts and the Challenge of Religious Freedom
The UK, known for its deep-rooted traditions of religious tolerance, now finds itself navigating complex questions raised by the presence of sharia courts within its borders. These courts, operating under Islamic law, are flourishing, with an estimated 85 in operation throughout the country. This phenomenon raises significant concerns about integration and adherence to national legal frameworks, especially when practices illegal under UK law, such as polygamous marriages, are increasingly normalized. Sharia courts, also referred to as councils, have existed in the UK since the early 1980s. They primarily deal with family and matrimonial matters, often attracting British Muslims as well as individuals from Europe and North America. The Islamic Sharia Council of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, established in 1982 and based in Leyton, East London, is a prominent example. Registered as a charity, it oversees marriage (nikah) and divorce (talaq for men and khula for women) services. However, some of the practices associated with these courts challenge the legal and cultural frameworks of the UK. Polygamy, for instance, remains illegal under British law, yet it is so widely accepted in certain Muslim communities that it has been integrated into modern technology. A UK-based app for creating Islamic wills, reportedly approved by a sharia court, allows men to select the number of wives they have, ranging from one to four. In line with traditional Islamic inheritance laws, the app also allocates daughters half the inheritance amount of sons. Moreover, popular matrimonial platforms like Muzz (formerly Muzmatch) permit male users to declare their "polygamy plan," whether they intend to remain monogamous or seek additional wives. Such practices highlight the tension between religious customs and the UK's legal framework, which prohibits polygamous unions on British soil. In such cases, individuals entering into multiple marriages may be committing the crime of bigamy. These developments reveal a troubling reality: existing UK laws and regulations are not being consistently enforced, particularly in segregated Muslim communities where orthodox Islamic doctrines dominate. As a result, practices that undermine gender equality and contravene national laws are allowed to persist, unchecked. This situation underscores the urgent need for a robust strategy that balances the protection of religious freedom with the enforcement of UK law. Britain’s proud tradition of welcoming diverse cultural and religious practices must not come at the expense of equality, integration, and adherence to the rule of law. Strengthening the implementation of existing legal frameworks is essential to addressing these challenges while ensuring that all citizens are afforded equal rights and protections. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-24 “Our Democracy Is Being Attacked” | Britain’s Muslim Sharia Courts Surge -
0
Concerns Mount Over Chinese Medical Tech in the NHS and Potential Data Harvesting Risks
Experts and officials have issued stark warnings about the potential exploitation of sensitive health data from British patients by Chinese entities, raising fears that such information could be weaponized for biotechnological purposes. Concerns have intensified as Chinese medical technology companies gain an increasing foothold in Britain’s healthcare system, supplying critical equipment to hospitals and potentially accessing valuable patient data. Alarm bells are ringing among MPs and security specialists over the risks posed by China’s growing role in the UK healthcare sector. The fear is that patient health information, when harvested, could be used to develop bioweapons tailored to specific populations. British hospitals, heavily reliant on advanced medical equipment, are increasingly sourcing such tools from Chinese firms, raising strategic security concerns. One prominent company at the center of attention is Mindray, a Shenzhen-based firm with a UK base in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire. The company has significantly expanded its operations across Europe and Britain, employing over 100 staff and securing contracts with more than 600 teaching hospitals across Europe. In the UK alone, Mindray has entered into over 50 contracts with NHS hospitals to provide vital equipment, including monitors, ventilators, anaesthesia devices, and ultrasound instruments. Despite no allegations of wrongdoing against Mindray, its rapid integration into European healthcare systems has fueled apprehensions about data security. The company asserts that its diagnostic equipment operates within secure, closed hospital IT infrastructures and does not externally store patient data. However, its strong political connections and endorsement from Chinese Premier Li Qiang—who visited the company in August—have underscored the strategic importance of Mindray to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The broader issue extends beyond one company. MI5 chief Ken McCallum highlighted the risk of hostile states like China exploiting emerging technologies, including synthetic biology, which involves modifying biological systems such as viruses for new functions. “The stakes are now incredibly high on emerging technologies,” McCallum stated, warning that states dominating fields like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and synthetic biology could wield immense power in shaping global futures. Tory Shadow Foreign Minister Alicia Kearns has called for urgent safeguards to prevent British patient data from falling into adversarial hands. She emphasized the Chinese regime’s disregard for privacy, stating, “The Chinese Communist Party has no respect for privacy or individual rights. It raids personal information when it wants, and once British data reaches China, we have no way of ensuring it isn’t used for malicious purposes.” Kearns underscored the strategic implications of genomic data harvesting, noting that China’s ambition to become a global biotech leader depends on accessing diverse genetic data beyond its domestic population. She added, “No country would tolerate a foreign state raiding physical copies of patient healthcare records—why should we accept the risk of our most intimate information being stolen digitally?” As concerns escalate, calls for stricter regulations and vigilance in the procurement of medical technology are growing louder. The potential misuse of sensitive health data underscores the need for a robust strategy to safeguard national security while maintaining the integrity of Britain’s healthcare system. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-12-24 -
0
Predator given ‘soft touch’ by Scottish justice system went on to commit rape
A predator who escaped prosecution under Scotland’s “soft touch” justice system after sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl went on to rape another teenager. Lennox McGhee did not face court action and benefitted from a “diversion from prosecution” scheme after he carried out a serious sexual attack in 2020 at the age of 15 on another child. Less than two years later, he went on to rape a 15-year-old girl in woods in his hometown of East Kilbride, Lanarkshire. The victim’s mother said that the earlier let off under an initiative that refers some young offenders to social workers and therapists instead of facing justice had left McGhee free to attack her daughter. The court heard that the ordeal had left the girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, “broken”. McGhee, now aged 19, was jailed for four years and eight months for rape at the High Court in Glasgow. ‘System is disgraceful’ “We’re furious. If he had been given the same jail sentence the first time around, he wouldn’t have been free to attack my daughter,” the mother told The Sunday Mail. “A system that allows rapists to avoid going to court and offers them things like therapy is disgraceful. A victim of rape has endured the most heinous of crimes and for them it doesn’t end after the attack. My daughter has to live with this for the rest of her life. “We were relieved that he was given time in prison and that he is now behind bars but we wish he had been given longer. If it had been counted as his second offence, it would have been,” she added. The Lord Advocate ordered a review of so-called “diversion from prosecution” rules last year following two separate cases in which those accused of rape escaped punishment. However, it is yet to be completed. In 2020, McGhee allegedly pushed a girl to the ground, restrained her and repeatedly carried out a sex act on her “without her consent”. Rather than facing court, he was handed a “diversion from prosecution”, the details of which emerged in the later rape trial. Liam Kerr, the shadow justice spokesman for the Scottish Tories, said: “This is an appalling case, which many suggest a more robust earlier intervention would have prevented. “It’s obvious that under the SNP’s soft-touch justice, diversion from prosecution is being applied in ways that are completely inappropriate. “The public want guarantees that weak penalties are never applied in serious cases, especially those such as rape and sexual assault.” Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-24
-
-
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