.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
6
Trump Just Pulled Out Of The Debate 🐥🐣🐓🐔🐤
Different democratic candidate, different game plan. According to the rumblings in the Trump team they want the microphone off because they are worried that Trump can’t handle 90 minutes of Harris having the option to speak the entire time. They should be concerned. Trump isn’t sharp or skilled enough to handle it and he will get squeezed into a corner. Then he will get triggered and lash out. Will be a disaster for him. -
23
Can you do same day in and out when doing plane flight border runs?
Are you really sure that I give false information? A friend of mine just showed 10k to the immigration officer from his Thai bank application on mobile phone and it was fine! -
0
After Solingen Stabbings Scholz Pledges Swift Deportations and Stricter Laws
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has vowed to take decisive action following a tragic stabbing incident in Solingen that left three people dead. The attack, allegedly perpetrated by a Syrian asylum seeker, has reignited the country's ongoing debate over migration and the policies surrounding it. Scholz made his intentions clear during a visit to the western town of Solingen, where the attack occurred, stating that irregular migration into Germany "must go down." He underscored the gravity of the situation by labeling the incident as an act of terrorism, saying, "This was terrorism, terrorism against us all." Scholz's remarks reflect the growing political pressure in Germany to address issues related to migration and public safety. He emphasized the need for his government to do "everything we can to ensure that those who cannot and should not stay here in Germany are repatriated and deported." He also promised that deportations would be expedited if necessary to prevent such tragedies in the future. In addition to accelerating deportations, Scholz pledged to tighten laws on weapons ownership "very quickly," signaling a comprehensive approach to enhancing security. The political ramifications of the Solingen stabbings were immediate and far-reaching. The suspect, identified as 26-year-old Issa Al H., a Syrian refugee, has been linked to the terror organization Islamic State. This connection has fueled an already heated debate on migration in Germany. Conservative opposition leader Friedrich Merz quickly called for an end to accepting refugees from Syria and Afghanistan, arguing that stricter border controls were necessary. His position, while controversial, reflects a growing sentiment among certain political factions in Germany that the country needs to reevaluate its immigration policies. Alice Weidel, the leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), took an even more extreme stance, advocating for a complete halt to all migration. The AfD has long been critical of Germany's immigration policies, and Weidel's call for a total stop to migration represents the party's most extreme position yet. However, experts caution that such measures are neither feasible nor compatible with German and European Union law, which requires member states to honor their legal and humanitarian commitments to those fleeing persecution. Despite the intense political pressure, Scholz's governing center-left SPD party has reiterated Germany's commitment to helping those in need. The party maintains that Germany must uphold its obligations to asylum seekers while also ensuring that those who pose a threat to public safety are deported. The government has pledged to deport migrants who have committed serious crimes or whose asylum applications have been rejected. The Solingen suspect's case has raised questions about the effectiveness of Germany's deportation system. Issa Al H. arrived in Germany in 2022 as a Syrian refugee, a group that typically has a strong chance of being granted asylum. However, his application was rejected, and he was ordered to be deported to Bulgaria, the country where he had initially registered for asylum. Despite this order, authorities were unable to locate him for deportation, allowing him to remain in Germany. The failure to deport him has sparked a heated debate over who was responsible for the oversight. Germany's deportation policies are complicated by international law and humanitarian concerns. The country generally does not deport people to unsafe countries or war zones, such as Syria or Afghanistan. Doing so would require negotiations with regimes like the Taliban in Afghanistan, a prospect that is both politically and practically challenging. Nevertheless, there are increasing calls within Germany to revisit these policies in light of recent events. The ongoing debate over migration has been a contentious issue in Germany for years. Local councils frequently report that their budgets are strained by the influx of refugees, and there are ongoing discussions about how to improve the asylum process. Some advocates argue that allowing refugees to work sooner would help them integrate more effectively into German society, thereby reducing the strain on public resources. Despite these challenges, Germany has generally managed to cope well with the large numbers of refugees it takes in each year. In 2023 alone, over 350,000 people applied for asylum in Germany. Additionally, since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, around 1.2 million Ukrainians have sought refuge in Germany. These numbers highlight the country's significant role in providing sanctuary to those fleeing conflict and persecution. Despite this large influx, terror attacks linked to asylum seekers in Germany are relatively rare. The last major incident occurred in 2016 when an Islamist extremist drove a lorry into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 people. However, the recent attack in Solingen is likely to have a substantial political impact. With key regional elections approaching in Saxony and Thuringia, the AfD is already using the attack as a rallying point for its campaign. The party, which has gained traction in parts of eastern Germany, is hoping to capitalize on public fear and dissatisfaction with current immigration policies. Within hours of the stabbing, the AfD posted a video on social media featuring the party's regional leader in Thuringia, Björn Höcke, with the caption "Höcke or Solingen," a stark and provocative message intended to resonate with voters. The political landscape in Germany is likely to shift as the country grapples with the implications of the Solingen attack. While Scholz's government is committed to upholding Germany's humanitarian obligations, it also faces mounting pressure to enhance security and control over migration. The balance between these competing priorities will shape Germany's policies in the coming months and could have lasting effects on the nation's approach to immigration and public safety. Credit: BBC 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
The Flying Bats FC Womens Football Team with 5 Transgenders Wins Grand Final
In a season marked by controversy and debate, the Flying Bats FC, a Sydney-based women’s soccer team, clinched the Women's Premier League grand final, capping off an undefeated season that has sparked discussions around the world. The team, which includes five transgender players, has become a focal point in the ongoing debate over transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports. The Flying Bats’ dominance throughout the season was evident as they won all 16 of their regular-season matches, scoring 65 goals while conceding just four. Their path to the grand final was punctuated by multiple forfeits from opposing teams, including both semi-final fixtures, due to objections over the presence of transgender players on the team. Despite these challenges, the Flying Bats emerged victorious, winning the grand final with a tight 5-4 scoreline against West Pennant Hills Cherrybrook Football Club. The grand final, held at Christie Park under tight security, reflected the intense scrutiny the team has faced. Security guards were present to discourage professional photography and monitor the crowd, highlighting the sensitivity surrounding the match. The scores were level at 3-3 by halftime, but the Flying Bats managed to pull ahead in the second half, thanks to strategic substitutions and a determined effort from their players. One of the transgender players was issued a yellow card during the match, and another was named best on the ground after the final whistle. The controversy surrounding the Flying Bats has attracted significant attention, with critics arguing that the inclusion of transgender players in women’s sports is unfair to cisgender female athletes. High-profile figures like JK Rowling and sports commentator Lucy Zelic have been vocal in their opposition, with Zelic describing the Flying Bats’ victory as a “crime against women” and calling for a deeper examination of the policies that allow transgender women to compete in female sports leagues. Zelic, who has been a consistent critic of the team, expressed her disappointment after the grand final, emphasizing the need to protect women’s sports from what she views as an erosion of fairness. “Somehow, this is supposed to represent progress. Somewhere, the custodians of our game don’t care,” Zelic posted online, echoing concerns from various quarters about the implications of the Flying Bats’ success. The West Pennant Hills Cherrybrook Football Club, who narrowly lost the grand final, described the defeat as “heartbreaking” but praised their players for their resilience and determination. “Our Premier League Women’s team have left everything on Christie Park this afternoon... We could not be prouder of you girls,” the club posted on social media, capturing the emotional toll of the match on their players and supporters. Throughout the season, six of the Flying Bats’ victories were the result of forfeits by opposing teams, reflecting the broader controversy surrounding their participation in the league. Reports suggest that sports governing bodies warned clubs against forfeiting their matches against the Flying Bats, highlighting the complex dynamics at play. The issue of transgender athletes in women’s sports is not just a local concern but a global one. The Flying Bats FC, which describes itself as the largest LGBTQIA+ women’s and non-binary football club in the world, has become a symbol of the broader debate over inclusion, fairness, and the future of women’s sports. Club president Jennifer Peden has been a staunch defender of the team’s inclusion policies, emphasizing the importance of providing a safe and supportive environment for all players, regardless of gender identity. “As a club, the Flying Bats FC stand strongly for inclusion, and pride ourselves on safe, respectful and fair play,” Peden stated in April. She pointed to the Australian Human Rights Commission’s guidelines, which prohibit discrimination against transgender players in sport under the federal Sex Discrimination Act of 1984. These guidelines emphasize that sporting organizations cannot discriminate against transgender individuals, either directly or indirectly. For example, refusing a transgender woman’s application for membership or requiring a birth certificate to verify gender would be considered discriminatory under these rules. The guidelines have informed the gender inclusion policies of Football Australia, Football NSW, and the North West Sydney Football Association, which governs the league in which the Flying Bats compete. Despite the backlash, supporters of the Flying Bats argue that the inclusion of transgender players is a matter of human rights and equality. The LGBTI Rights Australia Facebook group congratulated the team on their victory, criticizing the opposition as an exploitation of sports for political purposes. “Transgender women have been proudly part of the Bats for 20 YEARS... yet it took terf N@zi$ up until this week to take notice,” the group posted, celebrating the team’s success and calling out the critics. As the Flying Bats FC basks in their hard-earned victory, the debate over their place in women’s sports is far from settled. The team’s success has intensified discussions about the intersection of gender identity, fairness, and inclusion in sport, raising questions that resonate well beyond the soccer field. While the Flying Bats have proven their prowess on the pitch, their season has also highlighted the need for a broader societal conversation about the future of women’s sports in an increasingly diverse world. Credit: Daily Mail 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
The Silent Battle Against Iran’s Terror Financing: A Global Tug of War
As the war in Gaza dominates global headlines, another conflict—less visible but equally significant—continues to unfold behind closed doors. This is the quiet war waged over cutting off Hezbollah, the powerful Shiite militia, from the lifeblood that sustains its operations: Iranian petrodollars. While the world’s gaze is fixed on Gaza and the escalating skirmishes between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, diplomats are increasingly alarmed that this tension could spark a wider conflict. Simultaneously, a battle over Iranian terror financing has been simmering in the shadows, poised to reach a critical juncture in the coming weeks. This conflict, involving several Arab nations, Europe, and the U.S., centers on whether Lebanon will be penalized for its role in facilitating Hezbollah’s financial operations. This pivotal decision lies in the hands of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global body dedicated to combating money laundering. Founded by the G7 in 1989, FATF has grown to include numerous member countries worldwide. While FATF lacks formal enforcement power, its evaluations carry significant weight in international finance, potentially crippling a nation’s ability to operate within the global financial system. As FATF prepares to place Lebanon on its “gray list” of jurisdictions with weak anti-money laundering measures, the world is watching closely. Lebanon could face severe consequences if it fails to implement necessary reforms, potentially moving from the gray list to the dreaded “blacklist,” a designation that would further isolate the country financially. The recent Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7 served as a harsh reminder of the dangers posed by unchecked financial flows to terrorist organizations. Israel, the U.S., and other Western governments have previously tolerated the millions of dollars flowing to groups like Hamas from Qatar and Iran, believing that such funds would help stabilize Gaza. However, this strategy has backfired, prompting Western security officials to push for a more stringent approach to combating money laundering and terror financing in Lebanon, particularly those involving Hezbollah-affiliated entities. Sources familiar with FATF’s investigation suggest that the case against Lebanon is straightforward, given the overwhelming evidence of money laundering and terror financing within the country. However, the situation is complicated by Hezbollah’s deep-rooted influence over Lebanon’s institutions, which hampers the government’s ability to enforce international financial norms. Adding to the complexity, several regional players, including Bahrain and Libya, have aligned themselves with Lebanon, resisting international efforts to crack down on Hezbollah’s illicit financial activities. FATF’s current deliberations are not focused on whether Lebanon should be placed on the gray list but rather on the conditions Lebanon must meet to be removed from the list after a two-year review period. Central to this discussion is the role of Hezbollah in Lebanon’s banking system, which poses significant challenges to reform efforts. Hezbollah’s financial operations are heavily supported by Iran, a relationship that dates back to the 1980s. Iran’s financial backing has enabled Hezbollah to establish a powerful “state within a state” in Lebanon, positioning the group as a formidable adversary to Israel. Despite Hezbollah’s dominance in Lebanon’s political and economic landscape, the organization remains heavily reliant on Iranian funding. A significant portion of this funding is funneled through a Hezbollah-controlled financial entity known as the al-Qard al-Hasan Association (AQAH). AQAH functions like a bank, despite lacking a banking license and operating outside of regulatory oversight. It is a vital instrument for Hezbollah, enabling the group to pay its fighters and officials and provide financial services to local communities. Amid the political and economic turmoil that has plagued Lebanon in recent years, AQAH has expanded its operations, becoming one of the country’s largest financial institutions, with deposits reportedly reaching billions of dollars. What sets AQAH apart from other Lebanese banks is its designation as a non-profit organization by the Lebanese government. This status exempts AQAH from paying taxes, further entrenching its role in Hezbollah’s financial ecosystem. The U.S. government, which sanctioned AQAH in 2007, describes the organization as “a cover to manage [Hezbollah’s] financial activities and gain access to the international financial system.” Despite these sanctions, AQAH has continued to thrive, conducting its operations with little difficulty in Lebanon and across the broader Middle East. In fact, AQAH’s cross-border activities may become even easier following the Arab League’s decision in June to stop labeling Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. This shift in the Arab League’s stance has sparked controversy, particularly within FATF, where the question of Hezbollah’s terror designation remains a contentious issue. The debate over Hezbollah’s classification contributed to a significant delay in FATF’s report on Lebanon, which was finally published in December. Instead of directly naming Hezbollah, the report referred to the group as “a major local paramilitary organization with a well-documented track record of committing terrorist acts.” The report urged Lebanon to assess the risks of money laundering and terror financing associated with this organization and to implement measures to mitigate these risks. Hezbollah has been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks since the 1980s, including car bombings, suicide attacks, and drone strikes that have claimed hundreds of lives, including those of Americans, Israelis, and other civilians. Today, Hezbollah is considered one of the world’s largest private armies, with an estimated 50,000 fighters. The U.S., the European Union, and numerous other countries have designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, largely due to its ties to Iran. Western diplomats argue that a strong stance by FATF is essential to curbing Hezbollah’s financial activities. Without such a stance, Lebanon is unlikely to crack down on AQAH, allowing Iranian funds to continue flowing to Hezbollah unchecked. Moreover, these diplomats contend that a tougher evaluation by FATF could serve as a catalyst for reform within Lebanon, potentially attracting the foreign investment the country desperately needs. However, without assurances that Lebanon is not a haven for money laundering and terror financing, international investors are likely to stay away. One Western diplomat emphasized the potential benefits of a rigorous evaluation, stating, “A tough evaluation would actually help the Lebanese get out of this situation.” This sentiment reflects the broader hope among Western diplomats that FATF’s actions could help stabilize Lebanon’s economy by curbing Hezbollah’s influence and restoring confidence in the country’s financial system. As the global community awaits FATF’s decision, the outcome will have far-reaching implications not only for Lebanon but for the broader Middle East. The battle against Iran’s terror financing is not just a regional issue; it is a global one, with stakes that extend far beyond the borders of Lebanon. The decisions made in the coming weeks could either tighten the financial noose around Hezbollah or allow the group to continue its operations unabated, with consequences that could reverberate across the region and beyond. Credit: Politico 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
The Emerging Threat of Synthetic Bioweapons: Unseen Dangers in an Advancing World
In cybersecurity, a penetration test mimics an actual attack on a system's defenses, employing the very tactics and tools that a real adversary would use. This method is commonly used by governments and corporations alike, with banks, for instance, routinely hiring experts to breach their systems, steal login credentials, and transfer funds illicitly. Upon completion, these experts report their findings, offering solutions to strengthen security. This decade, humanity itself faced a massive, real-world penetration test: the COVID-19 pandemic. This virus, an unthinking enemy, exposed the world's vulnerabilities in combating new pathogens. By the time the virus had run its course, it was painfully evident that humanity had failed the test. COVID-19 infiltrated every corner of the globe, from remote Antarctic research outposts to isolated Amazonian tribes, wreaking havoc in nursing homes, military vessels, and among both the powerless and the powerful—striking down frontline workers and heads of state alike. The harsh lockdowns enforced by autocracies and the rapid development of vaccines in democracies managed to slow the virus's spread but could not stop it. By the end of 2022, a staggering three-quarters of Americans had been infected at least once, and when China finally abandoned its “zero COVID” policy in December, over one billion of its citizens were infected within six weeks. The relatively low mortality rate of the pandemic was not due to successful containment efforts but rather because the virus was only moderately lethal. In the end, COVID-19 primarily burned itself out. This failure against COVID-19 serves as a sobering reminder of the growing biological threats that the world faces, both natural and human-made. While some threats, like avian flu, arise from nature, others emerge from the rapid advancements in science. Over the past 60 years, scientists have gained profound insights into both molecular and human biology, leading to the development of highly lethal and effective pathogens. They have mastered techniques to create viruses that can evade immunity, engineer them to spread more efficiently through the air, and even increase their deadliness. Although the origins of COVID-19 remain uncertain—whether from a lab or wildlife—it is clear that modern biological technology, now enhanced by artificial intelligence, has made it easier than ever to produce devastating diseases. Should a synthetic pathogen escape or be deliberately released, the consequences could be catastrophic, potentially killing far more people and causing greater economic damage than COVID-19. In the worst-case scenario, such a pathogen could claim more lives than the Black Death, which decimated one-third of Europe’s population. To prevent such a disaster, world leaders must prioritize the strengthening of defenses against human-made pathogens. This task is as complex as managing nuclear weapons and addressing climate change, two of the early Anthropocene's other grand challenges. To combat this danger, nations will need to fortify their societies against synthetic pathogens. This includes developing early-warning systems capable of detecting engineered diseases, ramping up the production of personal protective equipment, and significantly improving its effectiveness. They will also need to reduce the time required to develop and distribute vaccines and antiviral drugs from months to mere days. Furthermore, there is an urgent need to regulate the technologies used to create and manipulate viruses. And all of this must happen quickly. The Double-Edged Sword of Biological Progress For more than a century, biology has been viewed as a force for progress. By the early 21st century, vaccines had eradicated smallpox and rinderpest and nearly eliminated polio. While many infectious diseases remain incurable, and total eradication of pathogens is rare, the advances have been undeniable. The qualified nature of humanity's accomplishments is perhaps best exemplified by the HIV pandemic. Once a near-certain death sentence, HIV now infects millions annually, but thanks to scientific innovation, it has been transformed into a manageable condition through antiretroviral drugs that prevent viral replication. This kind of medical progress depends on distinct yet loosely coordinated efforts in healthcare delivery, public health management, and scientific research. However, this progress is not without its dangers. The same scientific understanding of microbiology that has led to remarkable advances in human health has also enabled efforts to undermine it. During World War I, the Allies explored the use of bacterial weapons, and German military intelligence used such pathogens to attack animals used by the Allies for transport. These efforts included infecting horses and mules in France and Romania, and in Norway, attempting to infect reindeer that were used by the Sami to deliver weapons to Russian forces. German operatives even managed to infect stables in the United States filled with animals destined for Europe. By World War II, these initiatives had evolved into weapons intended to kill humans. In Japanese-occupied Manchuria, military officer Shiro Ishii oversaw Unit 731, a nightmarish facility where biological weapons were tested on human subjects. Thousands of prisoners were killed through exposure to anthrax, typhoid, glanders, dysentery, and the bubonic plague. Toward the end of the war, Ishii proposed a large-scale biological warfare operation, codenamed "Cherry Blossoms at Night," which involved dispersing plague-infested fleas over major U.S. West Coast cities. However, the plan was vetoed by Japan’s army chief of staff, who feared that such an operation would escalate the war to a never-ending battle between humanity and bacteria. Despite this caution, other nations continued to develop biological weapons. In the 1960s, the U.S. Department of Defense launched Project 112, experimenting with ways to mass-distribute pathogens. The U.S. military dispersed spores in the New York City subway tunnels, released bacteria from boats in San Francisco Bay, and sprayed chemicals from aircraft over vast areas, from the Rockies to the Atlantic and from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. These weapons were intended as a backup plan in case of a Soviet nuclear strike, providing a means to retaliate with biological devastation. By the mid-1960s, government scientists were producing significant quantities of lethal bacteria and toxins designed to "confound diagnosis and frustrate treatment," according to microbiologist Riley Housewright. These developments alarmed civilian researchers, who successfully lobbied against Washington's plans. President Richard Nixon, influenced by these concerns, halted the U.S. biological weapons program in 1969 and called for an international treaty to ban such weapons. Nobel Prize-winning biologist Joshua Lederberg supported this move, warning Congress that biological weapons could be as deadly as nuclear ones but easier to develop. Unlike nuclear weapons, which had been monopolized by the great powers and sustained a balance of deterrence, "germ power will work just the other way," Lederberg cautioned. However, the Soviet Union remained unconvinced. In 1971, as negotiations for a treaty were underway, the Soviets released a weaponized strain of the smallpox virus on an island in the Aral Sea, causing an outbreak in present-day Kazakhstan. The outbreak was contained due to the region's sparse population and widespread vaccination, but it highlighted the dangers of biological weapons. Later that year, the Soviet Union and the United States agreed to the Biological Weapons Convention, a treaty banning biological weapons, which was widely praised and signed in 1972. Despite this, the Soviets continued their biological weapons program in secret until the collapse of the Soviet Union, with some 60,000 people employed at its peak. Credit: Foreign Affairs 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
Kamala Harris Accelerates Campaign Momentum in Final Weeks Before Election
Kamala Harris is gearing up for a 71-day sprint toward the November 5th election, with a strategy designed to outpace Donald Trump, dominate news coverage, and make inroads in key battleground states. Her campaign is structured around a few critical objectives: to outwork her opponent, maintain a strong media presence, and focus her efforts on states that could expand her paths to victory. Harris' determination is evident as she intensifies her campaign efforts this week. Her schedule is packed, starting with a bus tour through southern Georgia—a state that has recently shown potential for Democratic gains. This tour marks the beginning of a relentless push to engage voters and increase her visibility across the nation. In addition to the bus tour, Harris is set to participate in her first interview as a presidential candidate, a significant milestone that underscores her growing presence in the race. Moreover, her team is ramping up preparations for the highly anticipated September 10th debate against Donald Trump, which is expected to be a pivotal moment in the campaign. Harris’ campaign is riding a wave of positive momentum following the Democratic convention, with polls showing encouraging signs. Her team is keen to maintain this momentum by keeping the pressure on Trump and promoting Harris’ message of optimism, which contrasts sharply with Trump's divisive rhetoric. The vice president's strategy is not just about winning votes; it's about offering a clear alternative to Trump’s vision, one that resonates with a broad spectrum of Americans who are looking for leadership that embodies strength, decency, the rule of law, and individual freedom. Although Harris has introduced several policy proposals aimed at supporting first-time homeowners, the working class, and other key demographics, her senior advisers are cautious about unveiling fully developed policy plans before Election Day. The rationale behind this decision is rooted in the reality of Harris' late entry into the race, which has forced her team to prioritize certain aspects of the campaign. With limited time before the election, Harris and her advisers believe that focusing on broad, aspirational themes will be more effective in countering Trump than getting bogged down in the specifics of policy debates. A key element of Harris’ strategy is to maximize media coverage without relying solely on paid advertisements. This approach is evident in her busy schedule, which is designed to generate news coverage that keeps her in the public eye. Nonetheless, her team has allocated a significant budget—$370 million—for TV and digital ads that will be deployed between Labor Day and Election Day, ensuring that her message reaches as many voters as possible. One of the most anticipated events in Harris' campaign is the upcoming debate against Donald Trump, which will be hosted by ABC News. This debate is seen as a critical moment that could potentially alter the course of the election. Harris' team is well aware of the stakes and has been working tirelessly to prepare her for the onslaught of falsehoods they expect from Trump. The vice president has already participated in a mock debate at Howard University prior to the Democratic convention and plans to engage in several more practice sessions before the real showdown. A small, dedicated group of aides, including policy advisers Brian Nelson and Rohini Kosoglu, along with Harris' White House and campaign chiefs of staff Sheila Nix and Lorraine Voles, are assisting her in these preparations. The debate is not just an opportunity for Harris to showcase her skills; it's a chance to solidify her position as a viable contender in the eyes of the electorate. Both campaigns recognize the importance of this event—Trump’s team hopes for a misstep from Harris that could go viral, while Harris' team knows that a strong, steady performance is crucial to reinforcing the belief that she can win in November. Acknowledging the criticism that she has been in office for 3½ years, Harris' team understands the need to effectively address this line of attack, which Republicans have used to link her to the perceived shortcomings of the Biden administration. In parallel with preparing for the debate, Harris’ campaign is also focused on expanding its reach in swing states. Dan Kanninen, the Harris campaign's battleground states director, emphasized the importance of building momentum following the Democratic convention. "It's important to have a place to put that energy," Kanninen noted, highlighting the ongoing efforts to bolster the campaign’s team and voter outreach in key states that could tip the balance in the election. Harris' campaign has been proactive in responding to Trump's false statements, but the strategy for the debate may involve a more measured approach. "I would let Trump be Trump," said Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro when asked what advice he would give Harris for her debate against the former president. Shapiro believes that Harris has the opportunity to remind voters of Trump’s past actions and the risks he poses for the future. "She is a skilled debater. She will do that effectively," he added, expressing confidence in Harris' ability to handle the high-pressure situation. As the election draws nearer, Harris’ campaign is clearly in full throttle, with a well-defined strategy aimed at securing victory. Whether through relentless campaigning, strategic media engagement, or meticulous debate preparation, Kamala Harris is making her case to the American people, positioning herself as the leader who can guide the nation forward in a time of division and uncertainty. The next 71 days will be crucial, and Harris is leaving nothing to chance in her bid to win the presidency. Credit: AXIOS 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
Australian Court Rules in Favor of Transgender Woman in Landmark Gender Discrimination Case
In a historic decision, the Federal Court of Australia has ruled that a transgender woman, Roxanne Tickle, was subjected to "indirect gender discrimination" when she was removed from the female-only social media platform, Giggle for Girls. The ruling marks the first time the court has addressed gender identity discrimination since the Sex Discrimination Act was amended in 2013 to include protections for sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex status. Roxanne Tickle, a transgender woman from New South Wales, had filed a lawsuit against Giggle for Girls and its founder, Sally Grover, in 2022, alleging unlawful gender identity discrimination after she was blocked from the platform in 2021. Tickle claimed that her account was revoked after Grover saw her photo and "considered her to be male." The case brought attention to the issue of how transgender individuals are treated on platforms designed exclusively for women. Judge Robert Bromwich, who presided over the case, ruled that although Tickle was not directly discriminated against, her claim of indirect discrimination was upheld. He concluded that using the Giggle App required Tickle "to have the appearance of a cisgender woman," thereby subjecting her to indirect discrimination. As a result, the court ordered Giggle for Girls and Grover to pay Tickle $10,000 (approximately £5,142) in general compensation, along with covering her legal costs. While Tickle’s claim for an apology from the platform was denied, with the judge deeming it "futile and inappropriate to require an inevitably insincere apology," the ruling was nonetheless a significant victory for Tickle and for transgender rights in Australia. Outside the court, Tickle expressed her relief and satisfaction with the outcome, describing the verdict as "healing." She emphasized the broader implications of the case, noting, "There is so much hate and bile cast on trans and gender diverse people simply because of who we are." The case has generated considerable attention and debate, particularly in light of Grover's stance on the issue. Grover, who founded Giggle for Girls as a platform for women, expressed her disappointment with the ruling, stating on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), "Unfortunately, we got the judgment we anticipated. The fight for women's rights continues." Grover has since launched a fundraiser to appeal the decision, indicating that the legal battle may not be over. Tickle, who has lived as a woman since 2017 and underwent gender-affirming surgery in 2019, is legally recognized as a woman and is identified as female in the Queensland Register. Her case against Giggle for Girls centered on the platform’s requirement for users to upload a selfie for verification, a process overseen by artificial intelligence to confirm the user’s gender as female. Although the AI initially identified Tickle as a woman when she signed up in February 2021, her access to the app was later restricted and eventually revoked. Tickle alleged that this occurred after Grover saw her photo, although Judge Bromwich noted that "there is no firm basis" to conclude that Grover was aware of Tickle’s gender identity at the time. In his ruling, Judge Bromwich addressed the complexities of the case, acknowledging that while there was no direct evidence proving Tickle was excluded due to her gender identity, it was "possible that this was the real but unproven reason." He further highlighted Grover’s views on sex and gender, which were made clear during the trial. When asked if she would accept a transgender woman as female if they had medically transitioned and were legally recognized as such, Grover stated that she "would not view that person as a woman." The judge also criticized Grover's conduct during the trial, particularly her behavior when she was seen "laughing, in the course of her oral evidence, at a demeaning caricature of Ms Tickle." He dismissed her explanation that the laughter was "funny in the context of the courtroom," calling it "obviously disingenuous" and labeling her behavior as "offensive and belittling." Judge Bromwich made it clear that such conduct had "no legitimate place" in the respondents' case. The ruling has set a significant precedent in Australian law, affirming the rights of transgender individuals against discrimination, particularly in contexts where gender identity intersects with access to female-only spaces. As the case continues to unfold, with Grover’s anticipated appeal, it will likely remain a focal point in the ongoing discourse on gender identity and discrimination in Australia. Credit: Sky News 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
North Korea's Drive for Advanced Suicide Drones Intensifies Under Kim Jong-un
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has escalated his regime's focus on military technology by calling for the accelerated development of suicide drones, a move that further highlights his determination to bolster North Korea's war readiness. During a recent inspection of the Drone Institute at the Academy of Defence Sciences, Kim underscored the importance of creating a diverse array of suicide drones, which he views as essential for the tactical and strategic operations of North Korea's military forces. "It is necessary to develop and produce more suicide drones of various types to be used in tactical infantry and special operation units, as well as strategic reconnaissance and multi-purpose attack drones," Kim Jong-un was quoted as saying by North Korea's state newswire, KCNA. His statement reflects a clear directive to enhance the country’s drone capabilities across multiple military domains. During the weekend visit, Kim Jong-un personally observed the performance of these new drones, which included watching as they successfully targeted and destroyed designated objects, such as a mock tank, after navigating preset flight paths. The spectacle was meant to demonstrate the effectiveness of these "suicide drones," which are designed to crash into their targets with explosive force. Kim emphasized that these drones should be incorporated into both tactical infantry and special operation units, including underwater suicide attack drones, to expand the scope of their military application. He also urged the development of artificial intelligence to further advance the capabilities of unmanned vehicles, signaling a broader ambition to integrate AI into North Korea’s military strategy. The concept of loitering munitions, which are drones that hover in the air while searching for a specific target before crashing into it with a warhead, has already seen widespread use in conflicts such as those in Ukraine and the Middle East. North Korea's pursuit of similar technology is part of a broader trend in modern warfare, where drones play an increasingly significant role in both offensive and defensive operations. State media released photographs of Kim Jong-un during the inspection, depicting him dressed in a loose-fitting all-white outfit and cap. The images show Kim inspecting blurred-out drones and appearing to provide instructions to senior officials, a visual representation of his hands-on approach to military innovation. Local reports have identified at least four different types of drones being developed, some of which were launched with small rocket engines, indicating the variety of drone technologies North Korea is exploring. This development is likely to cause concern in neighboring South Korea, particularly given the recent vulnerabilities exposed in its airspace security. South Korea has already experienced airspace incursions from the North, a reminder of the ongoing tension between the two countries, which remain technically at war since the Korean Peninsula was divided after the 1950-53 conflict ended with an armistice rather than a peace treaty. North Korea has previously used small commercial drones to infiltrate areas around South Korea’s capital, Seoul, including a notable incident in December 2022 when five North Korean drones crossed into South Korean airspace. In response, the South Korean military fired warning shots and deployed fighter jets, though none of the UAVs were brought down. In light of the recent developments in North Korea, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) has called for further analysis to determine the similarities between the newly unveiled North Korean drones and other models such as Russia’s ZALA Lancet and the Iranian-designed Shahed. The connection between North Korea and these countries has raised eyebrows, especially given the recent pledges for increased military cooperation between Kim Jong-un and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Pyongyang has been accused by the United States and South Korea of supplying munitions to Russia for its war in Ukraine, allegedly in exchange for advanced military technology. "We understand that some gifts (drones) were given in an exchange between North Korea and Russia in the past… We need to analyze various measures to see if those have improved performance," a JCS spokesperson stated during a briefing, highlighting the ongoing concern about the potential technological advancements North Korea could gain from its partnerships. In response to the growing threat posed by North Korea’s drone capabilities, South Korea has taken steps to strengthen its defenses. Last month, South Korea’s National Defence Acquisition Programme Administration (DAPA) announced plans to deploy new laser weapons, often referred to as "Star Wars" lasers, designed to neutralize drones dispatched from the North. These laser systems are expected to be operational by the end of the year and are intended to destroy drones by melting their surfaces, causing the internal components to ignite and rendering the drones inoperable. As North Korea continues to push the boundaries of its military technology, particularly in the realm of suicide drones, the regional security landscape is becoming increasingly complex. Kim Jong-un's relentless pursuit of advanced warfare capabilities is a stark reminder of the ongoing tensions on the Korean Peninsula and the broader implications for global security. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
BBC Faces Backlash Over Terminology in Hamas Coverage
The BBC has come under intense scrutiny following its description of Hamas suicide bomb attacks, which claimed the lives of dozens of civilians in Israel, as "military operations." This characterization, particularly by the BBC’s Arabic channel, has led to accusations of whitewashing the actions of Hamas and lacking impartiality in its coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict. The controversy erupted after the BBC Arabic channel reported that Mohammed Deif, a senior military leader of Hamas, had orchestrated a series of "military operations" against Israel, culminating in an attack on October 7th. Critics, including Camera (the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis), argue that the BBC's reporting implied that these attacks were directed primarily at Israeli soldiers rather than civilians, thereby diminishing the severity of the actions and their impact on non-combatants. Camera pointed out that the death toll from the attacks planned by Deif was 93, with a staggering 80 of those victims being civilians, ranging in age from 13 to 83. Only 13 of the deceased were soldiers or other security personnel. This stark contrast between civilian and military casualties has fueled accusations that the BBC Arabic’s terminology effectively whitewashes the true nature of Hamas's actions. In its reporting on Deif's assassination by Israeli forces, BBC Arabic noted that he had been wanted for years by the Israeli government for his involvement in terrorist activities. However, the channel repeatedly referred to these actions as "military operations" rather than labeling them as terror attacks. This language, critics argue, obscures the reality of the violence and its impact on civilians. In a background story about Deif’s death, BBC Arabic’s website stated, "For approximately 30 years, [Deif] took part in several military operations against Israel, starting from kidnapping soldiers and rocket attacks, passing through military operations and culminating in the October 7th, 2023 attack." This description, which fails to explicitly condemn the targeting of civilians, has been a focal point for those accusing the BBC of bias. Camera, which advocates for balanced media coverage of Israel, has been particularly vocal in its criticism. The organization stated, "Downplaying Palestinian groups’ responsibility for targeting innocent civilians as mere ‘accusations’, which only Israel and the US supposedly aim at them, has been a BBC Arabic habit for years. Even when the Palestinian groups themselves boast about similar murders, BBC Arabic reporters would often use their own voice to falsely describe them as ‘military operations’ carried out against ‘soldiers’ or ‘gunmen’." Mohammed Deif’s legacy as a Hamas military leader is marked by a history of violence, including the killing of at least 70 civilians in suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv during the 1990s. Additional fatalities occurred in Israeli settlements within the Gaza Strip throughout the 2000s. Despite this, when BBC Arabic reported on Deif’s death in an Israeli strike on a refugee camp in southern Gaza on July 14, the coverage included images of the bus bomb attacks and other violent acts organized by Deif, yet still referred to his actions as "military operations." The BBC has defended its coverage amid the backlash. A spokesperson for the corporation told The Telegraph, "BBC News Arabic has made clear throughout our coverage that Muhammad Deif was listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the US and the EU. We quoted the Israeli military describing Deif as a terrorist and that they hold him responsible for the murder of Israelis, and we referenced the serious accusations he faced around the 1996 attacks. Our audiences were in no doubt about Deif’s actions and the fact that he had been called a terrorist, including by Israel." The BBC’s defense highlights its effort to maintain what it views as a balanced approach in its reporting. However, the choice of language in such sensitive contexts continues to spark debate about the role of media in shaping public perception of global conflicts. The accusations against the BBC underscore the broader challenges that media organizations face in covering contentious issues, where word choice can carry significant weight in influencing public understanding and sentiment. As the situation evolves, the BBC may continue to face scrutiny over its coverage, particularly as the Israel-Hamas conflict remains a highly charged and polarizing issue. The debate over how media outlets describe and contextualize acts of violence by groups like Hamas is likely to persist, with significant implications for both journalistic integrity and public perception. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
Jermaine Jenas Apologizes to Female Colleagues Following BBC Dismissal
Jermaine Jenas, a former Premier League footballer and BBC presenter, has issued a heartfelt apology to his female colleagues after being dismissed from his roles at the broadcaster. The 41-year-old, who had been a familiar face on programs like "Match of the Day" and "The One Show," was let go after a female colleague raised concerns about inappropriate messages he had sent. In the aftermath of his dismissal, Jenas initially expressed his regret, describing himself as "ashamed" and "deeply sorry" for his actions. However, he has now taken the opportunity to directly address the women involved, acknowledging the impact of his behavior. "I always thought it was consensual and a two-way thing," Jenas said in an interview with The Sun on Sunday. Despite his belief at the time that the interactions were mutual, he has since come to realize the gravity of his actions and the distress they caused. Jenas has strongly denied any criminal wrongdoing but expressed frustration at being unable to apologize to the women personally due to legal constraints. "When it was all unfolding and I knew I was losing my job, I asked HR if I could contact the two women directly and apologize to both of them," he explained. "But because of the legal process, I wasn't allowed. I didn't get the opportunity to say sorry to them at that particular point when I really wanted to apologize." His regret is evident as he continued, "I really want to apologize from the bottom of my heart in terms of what I've put them through." Addressing the women directly, Jenas said, "I'm genuinely sorry for what I've done to you. I always thought it was consensual and a two-way thing." These words highlight his struggle to reconcile his perception of the interactions with the reality of the pain he caused. Jenas, who has been married to model Ellie Penfold for 13 years and is a father of four, revealed that he is currently receiving therapy to address what he describes as a "self-destructive streak" in his relationships. He admitted, "I'm not proud of what I wrote and what I said. And I do consider it cheating, yes, although nothing physical ever happened." He acknowledged his responsibility as a public figure and a representative of the BBC, stating, "This is all on me and I fully accept there is a level of responsibility that needs to be upheld when you're a member of the BBC. And I fell below those standards. I must take the responsibility." The BBC confirmed Jenas's departure, with a spokesperson stating, "We can confirm that he is no longer part of our presenting line-up." However, Jenas has expressed dissatisfaction with the way the BBC handled his sacking and indicated that he would be consulting with his lawyers regarding the situation. Official figures published last year showed that Jenas earned between £190,000 to £194,999 for his work on programs like the FA Cup, "Match of the Day," and the World Cup. His salary for "The One Show," produced by BBC Studios, was not publicly disclosed. The situation has added to the challenges facing the BBC, which is still dealing with the fallout from other recent scandals. The broadcaster has been under scrutiny following allegations of abuse on the set of one of its biggest shows, "Strictly Come Dancing," and the controversy surrounding former newsreader Huw Edwards. In another candid interview with The Sun, Jenas shared that his wife Ellie was "raging" after he informed her of his dismissal due to the messages. He also revealed that he had to have "difficult conversations" with his two eldest children, aged 11 and 16, about the situation. "They’re obviously of an age where they’re aware of social media... that’s been hard," he said, acknowledging the wider impact of his actions on his family. "I’ve let everyone down," Jenas admitted. "Even my dog looked at me disappointed." This moment of vulnerability underscores the depth of his remorse. He recognized that it was "time to own" his mistakes, adding, "I have been behaving in a certain way that’s just not been acceptable within our marriage. Ellie is completely innocent within all this. All she’s doing is at home, working her heart out, looking after my children." As he reflected on the consequences of his actions, Jenas concluded, "The overriding factor is just how sorry I am to everybody." His apology, while perhaps belated, is a clear attempt to make amends for the pain he has caused, not only to the women involved but also to his family and those who looked up to him as a public figure. Credit: The Independent 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe -
0
The Disappearing Giants: A World Without Glaciers
Gideon Brosowsky had always imagined glaciers to be immense, awe-inspiring masses of ice, the kind he had seen in movies like “Titanic.” But when the incoming high school junior arrived at Alaska’s Juneau Icefield during a family cruise in August, reality struck him with a wave of disappointment. Expecting to see something colossal, he found himself staring at what he described as a “small, dinky piece of ice” perched on a mountain. He had trouble even recognizing it as a glacier, especially after seeing historical photographs in local museums that painted a much more dramatic picture of the landscape just two decades ago. “I was in disbelief,” Brosowsky recalled. “I was assuming global warming is starting to eat away at these glaciers little by little, [but the pace was] a lot faster than I expected.” The thought that this once-majestic glacier might disappear entirely within a few decades left him stunned. Unbeknownst to Brosowsky, while he lamented the shrinking glacier before him, at least 64 other glaciers in the Juneau Icefield had already melted away since 2005. For years, scientists have been warning that glaciers are melting, a visible consequence of our warming planet. But now, many glaciers have already vanished. Venezuela, for instance, became glacier-free this year after losing its last glacier. New Zealand has seen at least 264 glaciers disappear. In the western United States, about 400 glaciers have been lost since the mid-20th century. In Switzerland, researchers have counted more than 1,000 small glaciers that have melted away. East Africa now has less than two square kilometers of glacial ice left. Throughout history, glaciers have occasionally disappeared, particularly in mountainous regions, but the rate of glacier loss has skyrocketed in recent decades. This rapid acceleration has melted many small, often nameless glaciers, leading scientists to grapple with a critical question: When does a glacier lose its label as a glacier? The disappearance of these glaciers signals the onset of a long-dreaded phase of global warming: glacial collapse. Much like cataloging extinct species, scientists are now, for the first time, mapping the glaciers that have vanished worldwide due to climate change. This effort has resulted in a living list of dead glaciers, a grim reminder of the ongoing effects of global warming. In August 2019, around 100 people made a two-hour trek to the top of an Icelandic volcano to attend a funeral. The glacier they came to mourn, Okjökull, had once been known as the "Ok glacier." It had reduced to a thin, stagnant piece of ice five years earlier, becoming the first glacier in Iceland to disappear because of climate change. Despite its significance, there was little recognition at the time. Years later, however, some people wanted to commemorate its loss in a more visible way. Dominic Boyer, a cultural anthropologist at Rice University, co-produced a documentary about Okjökull and helped organize the glacier’s funeral with his colleague Cymene Howe. Boyer was intrigued by the paradox that Iceland, a country named for its ice, was now losing its glaciers. The mourners said their goodbyes with moments of silence, poetry, and speeches about the need to combat climate change. Children at the site installed a memorial plaque that recorded the atmospheric carbon dioxide level at the time: 415 parts per million, about 20 percent higher than in 1979. The plaque also carried a message for future generations: "This moment is to acknowledge that we know what is happening and what needs to be done. Only you know if we did it." A few weeks after the Okjökull funeral, another group of 250 people gathered in Switzerland’s Glarus Alps for a similar event. They had come to mourn the Pizol Glacier. Swiss glaciologist Matthias Huss, who had visited the Pizol Glacier more than 50 times, saw the glacier begin to fragment after a particularly warm year in 2018. By 2019, he no longer considered it a glacier. While it’s uncommon for glaciologists to attend funerals for their subjects of study, Huss acknowledged that the event, organized by the Swiss Association for Climate Protection, was an “interesting ceremony to commemorate the disappearance of this glacier that also [brought] quite some public interest.” These ceremonies served not only as a way for communities to connect with the frozen relics of their past but also as a wake-up call for scientists, prompting them to start documenting these extinct glaciers. The funeral in Iceland, for example, inspired glaciologists to go beyond merely assessing glacier retreat. It pushed them to begin counting dead glaciers as well, said Howe, an anthropologist and professor at Rice University. While scientists don’t know exactly how many glaciers have disappeared across the globe, some groups have begun creating inventories to get a better understanding. Last year, the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) database, a premier resource for tracking glaciers, added an “extinct layer” that includes a little more than 150 extinct glaciers, primarily in the United States and Europe. In August, Howe and Boyer launched a Global Glacier Casualty List, which displays 15 extinct and endangered glaciers around the world, including in South America, Asia, and India. Some of these glaciers aren’t even included in the GLIMS map. Andrew Fountain, a glaciologist at Portland State University, started the first inventory of glaciers in the western United States and estimated that at least 400 glaciers have disappeared since the mid-20th century. Huss, who estimated that 1,000 glaciers have been lost in Switzerland alone, extrapolated that perhaps 10,000 glaciers might have been lost globally. Chinese glaciologists estimate that their country has lost more than 8,000 glaciers by itself. As scientists work to track these changes, they must also determine when a glacier ceases to exist. During his family cruise in Alaska, Brosowsky listened as his guide pointed out slabs of ice around Glacier Bay. Some were unmistakably large, magnificent glaciers, but others appeared to be mere ribbons of ice. “It’s kind of rude to the real glaciers, in my opinion, if we’re calling everything a glacier like that,” Brosowsky joked. Not all ice qualifies as a glacier. By definition, a glacier is essentially a moving river of ice formed from years of snow compaction. The movement of this ice, flowing downhill, is often too subtle for a person walking over it to notice, but scientists can measure the flow with instruments, according to Fountain. If a glacier becomes too small and stops moving, it’s no longer considered a glacier. The scientific term for such stagnant ice is “dead.” When an entire glacier is declared dead varies depending on the region, with size and flow thresholds differing across countries. Technicalities aside, there are more obvious signs that glaciers are starting to fall apart before our eyes. For the past 41 years, glaciologist Mauri Pelto has visited the Ice Worm Glacier in the Mount Daniel-Mount Hinman complex in Washington every year, witnessing its decline firsthand. The small glacier lost mass gradually until around 2015, a year marked by a warm summer and relatively low snowfall. Starting in 2021, however, an unprecedented series of warm years accelerated the glacier’s decline. Pelto began to see rock appearing at the bottom of the glacier, with holes forming in the ice, resembling Swiss cheese. In 2023, he declared that it was no longer a glacier. Just a year earlier, he had witnessed the disappearance of the larger Hinman Glacier — after thousands of years, all that remained were a few patches of snow and ice. “The end happened so fast,” said Pelto, a professor at Nichols College. “Whether it’s a pet or a person, they get near the end, a lot of things can happen really fast.” Pelto has personally witnessed the disappearance of 31 glaciers in the Pacific Northwest, although he believes there are many more that have gone undocumented. He expects another glacier in the Mount Daniel-Mount Hinman complex, the Foss Glacier, to lose its status as a glacier this year or next. For scientists, documenting extinct glaciers often feels existential. “A thought occurred to me that in a few decades’ time, nobody will read my papers because why bother? There are no glaciers,” said Fountain, comparing glacier inventory work to documenting dinosaurs. “I’m documenting what was.” While it’s theoretically possible for extinct glaciers to grow back, the reality is far less hopeful. In the Pacific Northwest, Pelto explained that snowfall would need to increase by at least 20 percent on average for many years, coupled with cooler summers, to reverse the trend. Considering that Earth has been experiencing record-breaking heat for over a year, such a scenario seems unlikely. “The ongoing disappearance of the smallest glaciers is not something we can just turn around, even if we stop [carbon dioxide] emissions today,” Huss said. “It’s too late for the small glaciers.” However, he added, it might not be too late for the bigger ones. Credit: W.P. 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe -
25
Robert Jenrick’s Vision for Tory Unity: A Possible Return for Boris Johnson?
You seem a bit backward, the candidates have been on Talk Radio giving their spill -
1
Buying a bare shell condo
Depends who you choose to do it, falang price etc, yes definitely under 1.5M, get a good thai builder rather than a shady falang -
2,732
President Kamala Harris
For the benefit of others, you brought a discussion about Biden, Ukraine and Afghanistan into a thread about Harris. I'm not the hijacker. As I pointed oiut, there is little evidence that Biden wanted to fly Zelinsky out. And Afghanistan wasn't America's to surrender. And that debacle was precipitated by President Trumpf becoming the first US President to openly negotiate with a terrorist organisation (most Americans would consider the Taliban to be Terrorists, though Trumpf's State Department did not). The origin of the polcy goes back to Richard Nixon, when Black September terrorist seized the US Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, in 1973; Trumpf broke that policy, and apparently that's ok with his supporters. Lets recall the timeline: 29 Feb 2020: US had 13,000 troops in Afghanistan. Trumpf negotiated with the Taliban, excluding the Afghan government from discussions, to complete US troop withdrawal by May 2021, and free 5000 hardened terrorists from Afghan prisons. In return, the Taliban promised not to attack the Americans, and they would keep an eye on Al Qaeda. This was a negotiated surrender by the United States, lead by Donald Trumpf 1st March 2020; The Afghan President objected, and said there was no way they were going to release 5000 murderers 4th March 2020; General Milley explained to Congress that the Taliban promised not to attacj US or Coalition troops, and would refrain from attacks on "high profile" targets. 5th March 2020: The taliban attack Afghan Army positions in Helmand. US responds with an air strike. The US begs the Taliban to "stop needless attacks and uphold their commitments" 10th March 2020: Under pressure from the US, the Afghan agrees to release 1500 murderers and terrorists, but at a reduced rate of 100 per day. 19th May 2020: US DoD Inspector General notes troop numbers had been reduced to 9,000, but noted that the Taliban had increased violence. The Trumpf government told the Taliban that if they continued to fight and be terrorists, then the agreement might be in jeopady. Nevertheless, an announcement was made to continue the drawdown. 18 August 2020: The inspector general reports that the Taliban continue to engage in violence, and were now starting to coordinate attacks with Al Qaeda. 3 September 2020: The Afghan government releases the last of the 5000 terrorists that Trumpf required them to release, despite the Taliban increasing attacks 12 September 2020; The Afghan government and Taliban meet in Doha for peace negotiations/surrender talks 16 September 2020: VoA reports that that the Taliban hacve ratcheted up attacks across Afghanistan. 19 September; Trumpf reports the US is doing very well with the Taliban, that they are really tough guys, really smart, very sharp, but they are tired of war. The Taliban piss themselves laughing. 16 November 2020: Trumpf announces an acceleration of the drawdown. Senator Rubio fears a Saigon-type disaster was going to occur. 17 November 2020: Defense Secretary Miller announces the US will reduce troops to 2500 by Mid Jan 2021. Its reported that this is the lowest number since 2001. Actually, it was worse than that. In 2001, most of those 2500 US troops were crack combat troops, best of the best. In 2021, those 2500 troops would include clerks, cooks, warehousemen, welfare officers, public affair soldiers photographing handshakes. The number of effective combat troops was now very smalll I estimate about 1000. IG reports that the Taliban continue to attack Dec 2 2020: Afghan surrender talks resume. I'm sure the talks on the "framework to govern peace negotiations" actually meant which Ministers would get to keep their heads and not be strung up by their feet and gutted. IG now reports that Al Qaeda were integrating into the Taliban leadership. Taliban continues the fight and talk strategy to pressure the Afghan government. Jan 15 2021: Miller confirms US troop contingent is 2,500. Afghan President complains to the BBC that the Americans didn't put into place any way to verify the Taliban were keeping to the terms of the US surrender agreement. He calls the US a friend and ally. He shouldn't have bothered. I think the 2500/1000 was a tipping point. By now, the US was visibly abandoning equipment and facilities, because they didn't have enough troops. It was now beyond a point of a surge, to make the Taliban more compliant. But Trumpf did negotiate a surrender, only he was too stupid to understand it. He likely saw it like one of his business agreements, which were mostly about debt, and getting some other sucker liable for the debt, because that's what smart businessmen do. What he didn't realise, and the Taliban did, in a surrender agreement, even a conditional one, conditions mean jack until you have actually surrendered. April 15 2021: Biden announces that the pullout/retreat will be delayed from May to September. Biden thinks he can somehow avoid the Saigon debacle that was set in place by Trumpf. The Taliban respond by basically ripping up Trumpf's surrender document, which they weren't sticking to anyhow. Trumpf says the US should stick to May 1st. May 18 2021: DoD IG releases another 3 month report, reporting Taliban attack in 3 months have increased 37%, and Taliban, with Al Qaeda, are now preparing for large scale offenses against the major population centres and Afgan military bases, ie, as soon as the US reduced the garrison to 2500, they were planning the end and rout. The 2500 was a tipping point for the US to be chased out of Afghanistan, nothing to do with Biden's pronouncement. June 26 2021: At a rally in Ohio, Trumpf boasts that Biden can't stop the US leaving Afghanistan, and says the Afghan government won't last once the US leaves. He has plotted all along to put a terrorist organisation in charge of Afghanistan for convenience. Later Trumpf has the gall to complain about the equipment left. He literally has no idea about how military logistics work, no how much stuff the US has in Afghanistan. I suspect in 2020, he was told by generals that equipment would be transferred to the ANA, and written down. Thats a term he understands. He has no idea of history, apparently no recollection why the North Vietnamese ended up with thousands of US military vehicles, 800 aircraft including modern F5Es, and why the enduring memory of Vietnam is Huey helicopters being tossed over the side of aircraft carriers. The US left huge amounts of equipment in Vietnam (technically transferred to the ARVN, who mostly wasn't trained on a lot of it). It wasn't to strengthen the South Vietnamese forces, but because it was just so expensive and complicated to bring it back. It wasn't worth it. And it wasn't worth bringing back Humvees, MRAPs and worn out UH-60s. I was involved with the UK drawdown from 2011. The US was starting that as well. At the time, the US was building basically scrapyards in Afghanistan, to dismantle equipment, rather than ship it back. the UK couldn't afford to do that, so everything came back. UK pullout took 3 years. I was aware of some crashed aircraft that took 4 years to retrieve from theatre (mainly due to the carbon fibre presenting shipping complications). In April 2021, Trumpf says the US should be out by May 1, mainly because he doesn't want to look stupid. But he looks stupid when after he complained about the equipment left. This very stable genius, just supposing he stayed in office, either because he won the election or had strung up his VP, would the outcome have been the same. Not quite, because instead it would be a paniced US military pulling out in May 2021. At the same time, Trumpf will probably be saying that the Taliban must love their country, because they are fighting so hard, but the ANA, well besides being suckers and losers, are obviously bad hombres who don't love their country, and he doesn't back losers. Erich is sent to Kabul to discuss real estate with the Taliban. He has the utter gall to go to Arlington Cemetary, and hijack a memorial service for troops who died in those fateful final days, all because of what he did, for electioneering purposes. He should be apologising, on his knees, apologising for being too stupid and naive for believing the promises of men who gave succour to terrorists who attacked his own city. He engineered the American humiliation out of arrogance (I'm a great negotiator), pride (I'm never wrong, I'm going to ruin things for the next guy) and vanity (they called me Your Excellency, with tears in their eyes). Biden deserves criticism, much like President Ford should have been criticised for letting down thr South Vietnamese. But I would put it at 20% Biden, 80% Trumpf. I don't think there was anything Biden could have done to prevent the Saigon scene that Rubio correctly predicted, only the timing. Nixon doomed the Saigon government, like Trumpf doomed the Kabul government. Thats another similarity they both have. Nixon never went to jail though, plus he served his country in uniform, honourably.
-
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