ReportWire

Tag: Conflict

  • Are colleges facing a free speech crisis?

    Are colleges facing a free speech crisis?

    [ad_1]

    Are colleges facing a free speech crisis?

    From the picket lines of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, to social media posts surrounding the Israel-Hamas conflict today, expressing free speech — and how to better define it — continues to test higher education decision-makers.

    The increase in student-led protests at U.S.-based colleges and universities surrounding the October 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict has brought free speech on campus, back into popular discourse. After the actions and suspensions of some student groups led to televised congressional hearings and then the resignation of two elite university presidents, defining and outlining free speech on campus appeared to be at a stalemate. Groups such as, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE are attempting to keep the dialogue going. FIRE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works on a national scale to spread awareness regarding free speech rights on college campuses. “We’re seeing large amounts of students professing self-censorship and the culture of free speech being deteriorated on college campuses,” Zach Greenberg said, the senior program officer within campus advocacy at FIRE. “And so while the law remains solid, we do worry about how it’s being applied and how universities actually are defending students’ free speech rights.” By expressing and exercising their free speech rights, student-led groups have consistently influenced federal legislation especially during the 1960s and 1970s. Most notably, the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Nixon signing the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18-years-old at the federal level. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement was amplified by courageous students such as Claudette Colvin, Diane Nash, the Little Rock Nine, and the Greensboro Four, and several student-led and founded groups such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Black Panther Party. However, protests reached a fever pitch on May 4, 1970, with the Kent State Massacre, in which four students were shot and killed by Ohio State National Guardsmen. Less than two weeks later, on May 15, 1970 at Jackson State in Mississippi, law enforcement fired into a crowd, killing a pre-law student and a local high school student, who was on campus at the time. Following these national tragedies, the Nixon administration assembled a task force to study campus unrest on a national scale. What resulted was a 400-plus page magnum opusEditSign titled, “The Report of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest,” which analyzed the Kent State and Jackson State tragedies, the history of campus protests stretching back to the American Revolution, and suggestions for students, faculty, and law enforcement moving forward. Although, the Nixon administration hesitated to implement the commission’s suggestions from the lengthy tome, today’s students aren’t limited by formal case studies to share their thoughts and reach a wider audience. Whether students speak formally through congressional hearings (that are subsequently shared on YouTube to view beyond traditional airtimes) or informally through social media posts, clarifying free speech for students in the digital age may continue to be a challenging, but a necessary, discussion. “Students aren’t really having the kind of discussions that they were having, perhaps 10 or 15 years ago,” Greenberg said. “The first step to defending your rights is knowing your rights.”

    The increase in student-led protests at U.S.-based colleges and universities surrounding the October 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict has brought free speech on campus, back into popular discourse. After the actions and suspensions of some student groups led to televised congressional hearings and then the resignation of two elite university presidents, defining and outlining free speech on campus appeared to be at a stalemate.

    Groups such as, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE are attempting to keep the dialogue going. FIRE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works on a national scale to spread awareness regarding free speech rights on college campuses.

    “We’re seeing large amounts of students professing self-censorship and the culture of free speech being deteriorated on college campuses,” Zach Greenberg said, the senior program officer within campus advocacy at FIRE. “And so while the law remains solid, we do worry about how it’s being applied and how universities actually are defending students’ free speech rights.”

    By expressing and exercising their free speech rights, student-led groups have consistently influenced federal legislation especially during the 1960s and 1970s.

    Most notably, the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Nixon signing the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18-years-old at the federal level.

    In the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement was amplified by courageous students such as Claudette Colvin, Diane Nash, the Little Rock Nine, and the Greensboro Four, and several student-led and founded groups such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Black Panther Party.

    However, protests reached a fever pitch on May 4, 1970, with the Kent State Massacre, in which four students were shot and killed by Ohio State National Guardsmen. Less than two weeks later, on May 15, 1970 at Jackson State in Mississippi, law enforcement fired into a crowd, killing a pre-law student and a local high school student, who was on campus at the time.

    Following these national tragedies, the Nixon administration assembled a task force to study campus unrest on a national scale. What resulted was a 400-plus page magnum opus

    Although, the Nixon administration hesitated to implement the commission’s suggestions from the lengthy tome, today’s students aren’t limited by formal case studies to share their thoughts and reach a wider audience.

    Whether students speak formally through congressional hearings (that are subsequently shared on YouTube to view beyond traditional airtimes) or informally through social media posts, clarifying free speech for students in the digital age may continue to be a challenging, but a necessary, discussion. “Students aren’t really having the kind of discussions that they were having, perhaps 10 or 15 years ago,” Greenberg said. “The first step to defending your rights is knowing your rights.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Civil War Is a Powerful Alt-Reality War Movie That’s Not What It Seems

    Civil War Is a Powerful Alt-Reality War Movie That’s Not What It Seems

    [ad_1]

    The trailers for Civil War, the latest film by Alex Garland, give the audience a very specific expectation of what they’re going to see. It looks like a film about a United States that is so divided politically, certain states have seceded and the country is at war. A scenario that’s, clearly, a fictionalized nightmare version of our present, where America’s Left and Right have turned to violence. And, in a way, Civil War is that. But it’s also not and that’s why it’s so damned fascinating and special.

    How Conspiracy Theories and Disinformation Spiral Out of Control on the Internet | TechModo

    Written and directed by Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation), Civil War is, indeed, about a United States that’s no longer united. A United States at war with itself, hence the title. But one of the main combatants in this war is the Western Forces, a group comprised of California and Texas. Now, everyone knows California and Texas are maybe the two most polar opposite states in our current political climate. So that’s the first clue Civil War isn’t a by-the-book, pro-left, anti-right Hollywood tale. It has an agenda, for sure, and that agenda is certainly more inclusive than not, but Garland very specifically makes it clear that his America is not our America. Thereby, no matter who is watching the movie or what they believe, they can very easily enjoy the story without bias.

    In other words, the movie is as objective as possible which, not coincidentally, is also the primary ideology of the film’s main characters: a group of journalists. Kirsten Dunst plays Lee, a famous war photographer traveling the country with a fellow journalist named Joel, played by Wagner Moura. After documenting a terrifying, but all too common, act of violence in New York, Lee and Joel decide to take a trip to Washington D.C. to attempt to interview the president, played by Nick Offerman. Colleague Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) thinks it’s a bad idea, but goes along for the ride anyway, and they also pick up Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), an aspiring photographer who sees Lee as a hero and mentor.

    Spaney and Moura.
    Image: A24

    And so the four journalists leave New York for D.C, which is usually an uneventful four or five-hour drive. In this world though, with everything happening across the country, it becomes a much longer, more arduous trip. Certain roads are blocked off. Other areas are not safe. And soon, the group realizes no matter which way they go, there is danger and terror at every turn.

    Civil War is Alex Garland’s most mature movie to date. As he sets his characters off on this road trip, you can almost feel him not pushing the agenda one way or the other. An energy permeates the film, as if Garland wants to say something but is shaking and buzzing to hold it back. Much as the journalist heroes continue to preach objectivity and the importance of reporting the facts, no matter the circumstance, Garland too unfurls his narrative accordingly. Lee, Joel, and the crew approach each situation the same way: from a place of care and kindness. Sometimes that works, other times it doesn’t. Often, the most dangerous things we see aren’t in the center of the frame. A burning building here. A pile of bodies there. And while Joel and Lee’s distaste for the president certainly codes them as sympathetic to the WF, the film never really says what the WF stands for. We’re left to wonder, is it more Texas? Or more California?

    That the film avoids ever defining the root of the conflict is one of the best things about the movie. Contrarily, one of the worst things is as the characters make the trek from New York to D.C. things can get a little repetitive. They drive, encounter an obstacle, learn something, and move on. Then they drive, encounter an obstacle, learn something, and move on again. The pattern repeats itself a few times and while each of those obstacles unfolds in a different, usually surprising way, some of the film’s momentum does falter following this structure.

    Dunst and Spaeny.

    Dunst and Spaeny.
    Image: A24

    Where Civil War doesn’t falter is portraying intensity. Whenever the heroes encounter one of those obstacles, be it a booby-trapped gas station, hidden sniper, or a pink-sunglassed Jesse Plemons, the film’s tension always gets turned to 11. We are rarely sure what’s going to happen, and who is going to survive, primarily because of that objectivity. No one is treated like a hero or villain at the start. That changes scene to scene, of course, but the film, like the journalists, gives everyone an equal shot, which can be scary.

    That can also make you question yourself, your biases, and more. Civil War is a film that challenges its audience to put themselves in the shoes of not just the main characters, but everyone. Partially that’s because everything in the movie seems so plausible that we see ourselves, our friends, and our neighbors in it. But it’s also because the performances are all so strong across the board that it’s easy to relate.

    It feels like it’s been forever since we’ve seen Kirsten Dunst in a big, showy, starring role like this and watching Civil War, you have no idea why. Dunst gives a nuanced, powerful performance as Lee, a veteran so confident in herself that she’s almost carefree. That is until she meets Jessie. In Jessie, Lee sees a younger version of herself and it terrifies her. Lee knows Jessie, portrayed with lots of raw emotions by Spaeny, is dooming herself to danger. Choosing this life is probably the wrong thing for her. And so what should be a simple, mentor-mentee relationship is always strained. Lee sees too much of herself in Jessie, and Jessie doesn’t care.

    Just another day.

    Just another day.
    Image: A24

    Their complex relationship, as well as the gravitas provided by Moura’s Joel and McKinley Henderson’s Sammy, come to a head in the film’s final act, which sees the team finally make it to Washington. Garland then unfurls a guttural, shocking, ground-level war in the heart of the nation’s capital, featuring views of national monuments and more that feel akin to 1996’s Independence Day. What happens in these scenes I won’t spoil, but it all builds to a final few minutes destined to be discussed and quoted for as long as movies exist. It’s that fantastic.

    Ultimately, Civil War is a Rorschach test designed for maximum impact across political ideologies. You can watch it and view it however you’d like. Is not taking a side a bit of a cop-out? Should there have been a bit more of the story leaning left or right? I’d argue the fact it doesn’t have that is the authorship. Garland isn’t necessarily interested in changing anyone’s mind about anything. He wants any and everyone to consider themselves and what those differences could end up becoming. And hey, if playing it down the middle helps more people see it, that’s just a bonus.

    Civil War is in theaters Friday.

    Why Alex Garland Loves Science Fiction

    Why Alex Garland Loves Science Fiction

    Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

    [ad_2]

    Germain Lussier

    Source link

  • Russia-Ukraine war: List of key events, day 775

    Russia-Ukraine war: List of key events, day 775

    [ad_1]

    As the war enters its 775th day, these are the main developments.

    Here is the situation on Tuesday, April 9, 2024.

    Fighting

    • At least three people were killed and eight injured in the southern city of Zaporizhzia after a Russian missile hit several apartment blocks, an industrial building as well as medical and educational facilities.
    • One woman was killed and three others injured after Russia attacked the town of Bilopillia in the northern Sumy region with guided bombs. The attack struck the centre of the town of 15,000 people, damaging shops and a city council building.
    • One person was killed and five injured, including three children, after Russian shelling triggered a fire and the collapse of a building roof, officials said.
    • Officials in Zvyahel in Ukraine’s central Zhytomyr region urged people to stay indoors amid fears of “air pollution” after a Russian drone attack hit infrastructure. No casualties were reported. Russia launched 24 drones on targets across Ukraine, authorities said, with 17 brought down.
    • Moscow requested an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s 35-nation Board of Governors over alleged Ukrainian attacks on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Kyiv has denied attacking the plant, accusing Russia of spreading disinformation.
    • Ukrainian Energy Minister German Galushchenko said Russia had struck as much as 80 percent of Ukraine’s conventional power plants and half its hydroelectric plants in recent weeks in the heaviest attacks since Moscow began its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

    Politics and diplomacy

    • United Kingdom Foreign Minister David Cameron will meet US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday during a trip to the United States where he will urge Congress to pass a $60b aid package for Ukraine that has been blocked by Republicans.
    • Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova posted a photo on Telegram showing Lavrov meeting Wang but gave no information on the content of their discussions.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Civil War Avoids Alex Garland’s Sci-Fi Tendencies

    Why Civil War Avoids Alex Garland’s Sci-Fi Tendencies

    [ad_1]

    If you were to make a list of people you’d expect to make a gritty, grounded, realistic, political thriller-slash-war movie, Alex Garland wouldn’t be on it. From his earliest work writing movies such as 28 Days Later and Sunshine to his directorial efforts such as Ex Machina and Annihilation, Garland has almost exclusively worked in sci-fi. So when his name pops up on a movie like Civil War, a cautionary action film about the political divide in the United States, it’s a bit of a head-scratcher. Garland gets that.

    Denis Villeneuve on Ending Dune: Part Two That Way

    “The reason I love sci-fi is because sci-fi has always permitted big ideas into it. It’s not embarrassed of big ideas,” Garland told io9 on video chat last week. “They exist in Forbidden Planet. They exist in Star Trek. There would be clear discussions or metaphors or literary analogies or whatever it happens to be. It was just allowed. And sci-fi audiences were kind of open-minded. They actually liked that… whereas if you did that in other genres, people would raise an eyebrow, like get a bit arch and a bit skeptical, in a sense… But [Civil War], if this was too sci-fi, it would reduce the texture of reality. And so it just didn’t feel appropriate. If I’d set it on a distant planet, yeah, it would have worked as an analogy, maybe, but it wouldn’t have the strength of the assertion.”

    And so the sci-fi guy put that all aside and approached reality in his own, unique way. In Civil War, Garland presents a United States that is no longer united. The country has fractured into several different areas, many of which are now at war with one another. And while there is clearly DNA pulled from the current political climate, the film very specifically veers away from defining anything specifically. No one is right-wing, no one is left-wing, everyone just is, and that objectivity was not only a conscious choice in the writing, it echoes in his lead characters too.

    Garland on set.
    Image: A24

    “What I wanted the film to do was to function as a film in the same way as the reporters, which is just to show a sequence of events with a kind of studied neutrality,” he said. “Now, that doesn’t mean that it’s without bias, because a journalist reporting on something might have very strong feelings, and in fact, you could almost guarantee they would. So it’s just to do with how information is presented.”

    Garland’s attempts at personifying and paying homage to objective, hard-nosed journalism even carried over to the choice of journalism depicted in the film. Though modern media is ruled by video, the main characters in Civil War are still photographers, a specific nod to the old-school way of doing things Garland wanted to pay tribute to.

    “When you make a film, you try and make it work at different levels, and some of them are quite unconscious levels,” he said. “You hope it lands in an unconscious way but, in truth… [having the characters be photo journalists] reminds people of that old-fashioned form of photojournalism. Of that old-fashioned form of reporting when you had—in the 1960s and 1970s or whatever it was—these still photographers winding their camera. So it’s like a kind of trace memory.”

    Photojournalism in full effect.

    Photojournalism in full effect.
    Image: A24

    Garland hopes when Civil War comes out, that it’ll be less of a trace memory for people and more of a gut shot. But he’s not exactly sure if that’ll happen. “It’s a dice roll,” he said. “You’re throwing this out into a polarized world where if you are not preaching to the choir that wants to be preached to, then they’ll get pissed off. Because that’s the counter. You want to hear your own biases reflected back at you.”

    And from the guy who usually writes about running zombies, spaceships, AI, and alternate dimensions, it’s not doesn’t seem to be a reflection of him at all. Even though it is.

    Civil War is in theaters Friday. We’ll have more from Garland later this week.

    Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

    [ad_2]

    Germain Lussier

    Source link

  • Does Israel’s attack on aid workers mark a turning point for its allies?

    Does Israel’s attack on aid workers mark a turning point for its allies?

    [ad_1]

    The killing of international aid workers with World Central Kitchen (WCK) sparks strongest Western reaction to date.

    After six months of war and more than 33,000 Palestinians in Gaza killed, it was Israel’s killing of international aid workers this week that triggered the West’s most furious response to date.

    Israel has faced sharp criticism since Monday’s attack on a World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid convoy in Gaza – with even the United States joining the global chorus of condemnation.

    So how have events this week affected Israel’s international standing?

    Presenter: James Bays

    Guests:

    Nour Odeh – Palestinian political analyst

    Gideon Levy – Columnist for Haaretz newspaper in Tel Aviv

    Chris Doyle – Director at the Council for Arab-British Understanding in London

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russia-Ukraine war: List of key events, day 769

    Russia-Ukraine war: List of key events, day 769

    [ad_1]

    As the war enters its 769th day, these are the main developments.

    Here is the situation on Wednesday, April 3, 2024.

    Fighting

    • Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said Russian forces had captured 403 sq km (156 sq miles) of territory since the start of the year and last month, secured control over five towns and villages in eastern Ukraine.
    • Ukraine rejected Shoigu’s claims, saying its troops continued to defend Tonenke and Nevelske, which Shoigu mentioned among the settlements taken by Russia.
    • At least 18 people, including five children, were injured after a Russian missile attack damaged a college and a kindergarten in the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro.
    • About a dozen people were injured after Ukrainian drones struck several industrial sites in the Russian region of Tatarstan, about 1,300km (800 miles) from the front lines, including Russia’s third-largest oil refinery and a factory producing Shahed drones.
    • Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a bill lowering the mobilisation age for combat duty from 27 to 25 years old.
    • Russia named Sergei Pinchuk as the new commander of the Black Sea Fleet after a spate of Ukrainian attacks on its military ships.

    Politics and diplomacy

    • Andriy Kostin, Ukraine’s top prosecutor, told the Reuters news agency that there were “hallmarks of genocide” in Russian crimes across Ukraine, including the mass killings of civilians in Bucha outside Kyiv in 2022. Kostin said such crimes should be tried domestically and by the International Criminal Court.
    • A Moscow court sentenced Pyotr Verzilov, a Russian-Canadian activist and independent news site founder, to eight years and four months in prison for social media posts criticising the Ukraine war. Verzilov, 36, rose to prominence as the unofficial spokesperson of the feminist opposition group Pussy Riot and left Russia in 2020.

    Weapons

    • NATO foreign ministers will meet on Wednesday to discuss a proposal for a 100 billion euro ($107bn) five-year fund to provide aid for Kyiv that would give the security alliance a more direct role in coordinating the supply of arms, ammunition and equipment to Ukraine.
    • Germany’s Defence Ministry said Berlin will provide Ukraine with 180,000 rounds of artillery shells through a Czech-led plan to buy ammunition for Ukraine.
    • Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) said it had seized 70 kilos (154 pounds) of home-made explosives and explosive devices “hidden in icons and ready for use” following a cargo inspection near the Latvian border. It alleged the explosives had been sent from Ukraine through multiple European Union countries.

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • See How Alex Garland’s Civil War Divides the United States

    See How Alex Garland’s Civil War Divides the United States

    [ad_1]

    Alex Garland’s Civil War isn’t shy about its premise. It’s right there in the title. It’s about a United States of America that’s no longer united, with various sections engaged in a civil war. But while many would assume it’s some kind of easy-to-understand red state, blue state thing, A24 has released an image that shows it’s anything but.

    How Conspiracy Theories and Disinformation Spiral Out of Control on the Internet | TechModo

    Civil War is scheduled for release April 12. In it, Kirsten Dunst and Wagner Moura play journalists attempting to travel from New York to Washington, D.C. Along the way, they pick up a young, aspiring photo journalist played by Cailee Spaeny who is about to get a baptism of fire traveling through the country.

    But what does the country these characters exist in look like? Over on social media, A24 released the below image to show exactly where the divisions are in the nation and, as you’ll see, there’s a lot to discuss.

    The (not so) United States of Civil War.
    Image: A24

    A few things jump out here. The first, of course, are the “Western Forces,” which include exactly one Western state—California—along with Texas. In reality, few states are as fundamentally different as California and Texas, but therein lies Garland’s point: Civil War isn’t about our 2024 reality. It’s an alternate version inspired by ours that comments on the potential consequences of our actions. And, it doesn’t really take a side or explain anything. Are the Western Forces more politically aligned with California or Texas? We never find out, and that’s the point.

    This map also doesn’t make it clear who are the good guys and bad guys in the movie. Which, again, is the point. Who are the Loyalist States loyal to? Why is the Northwest a “New People?” And the Florida Alliance… well, that one actually kind of makes sense.

    Having seen Civil War I can reveal that not all of these questions are answered, but seeing this map and thinking about it will begin to prepare you for the unexpected nature of the film. Tickets are on sale now.

    Want more io9 news? Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who.

    [ad_2]

    Germain Lussier

    Source link

  • Long-Lost Bombs From the World Wars Are Increasingly Likely to Blow Up, Scientists Say

    Long-Lost Bombs From the World Wars Are Increasingly Likely to Blow Up, Scientists Say

    [ad_1]

    Live ordnance from both the First and Second World Wars are more likely to detonate as they age, according to a new study published in Royal Society Open Science.

    Rebecca Hall on Filming Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire

    “The munitions are continuously deteriorating, resulting in the release of hazardous materials into the environment, potentially posing environmental and societal risks,” the researchers wrote. “Moreover, as the explosives deteriorate over time, often resulting from inferior storage conditions or the presence of undesired factors such as moisture and certain metals, the munitions may become increasingly sensitive to external stimuli and susceptible to accidental detonation.”

    The team studied Amatols, explosive combinations of TNT and ammonium nitrate, extracted from historical ordnance in Norway. Amatols were first cooked up in 1915, when the United Kingdom found itself short on artillery shells during the First World War. For several decades—through the Second World War—Amatols were used as a convenient substitute for pure TNT in explosives.

    The ordnance recovered in Norway was live—i.e., set to explode—and was found during explosive ordnance disposal operations designed to avoid that very thing. All the ordnance studied by the team was produced before May 1945 and German-made.

    To test the sensitivity of the bombs, the team used a device called a fallhammer apparatus. The contraption is basically what it sounds like: masses are dropped on an explosive substance to determine the amount of force that is required to catalyze a reaction.

    Surprisingly, the ordnance was wholesale more sensitive to detonation today than it would have been when it was dropped. In the case of one explosive combination (dubbed “substance B” in the research), the explosive was four times more sensitive than expected.

    The team couldn’t determine what made the munitions more sensitive some 80 years after they were dropped. It may be the formation of salts that sensitize the mixture, they posited, or the contamination of the Amatol with metals the substances come into contact with in the ground. It may simple be the bombs losing structural integrity as they’ve sat in the ground over the decades.

    Increasingly sensitive bombs in the ground are a problem all over Europe and, frankly, wherever bombs have been dropped. In Germany, over 2,000 tons of munitions are found annually, and in the UK, thousands of explosive objects are found and safely dealt with each year. In Italy, about 60,000 pieces of unexploded ordnance are found each year, according to Atlas Obscura. And in Belgium, excavating explosive relics of the First World War remains a daily struggle. Overall, there are millions of tons of long-forgotten explosive ordnance, the team estimated.

    Furthermore, even undisturbed ordnance leaches toxic compounds into the ground as it deteriorates, the team wrote, posing a unique, vexing ecological problem.

    The team stressed the importance of getting the historical ordnance out of the ground, and taking even more care than is typical to do so. After all, no one wants to be on the receiving end of a particularly sensitive bombshell.

    More: Who Planted a Bomb That Killed Two People at the 1940 New York World’s Fair?

    [ad_2]

    Isaac Schultz

    Source link

  • Deface Of War

    Deface Of War

    [ad_1]

    Read more…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • For many Chinese, there are ‘more important things’ than Taiwan unification

    For many Chinese, there are ‘more important things’ than Taiwan unification

    [ad_1]

    “It is difficult to imagine that this used to be a warzone,” 23-year-old *Shao Hongtian told Al Jazeera as he wandered along a beach near the city of Xiamen on China’s southeast coast.

    Halting by the water’s edge where gentle waves lapped against the sand, Shao gestured beyond the shallows towards the sea and the Kinmen archipelago – now peaceful, but in the 1940s and 1950s, a battleground.

    The communists won the Chinese Civil War in 1949, and the nationalists of the Kuomintang (KMT) fled Beijing for the island of Taiwan. It was on Kinmen, the main island of the archipelago of the same name, less than 10km (6.2 miles) from the coast of China, that the nationalists repulsed repeated communist invasion attempts, but not before the fighting had wreaked havoc on both Xiamen and Kinmen.

    Kinmen and its outlying islets – some of which lie even closer to the Chinese coast – have been a part of Taiwan’s territory ever since.

    Chinese citizens like Shao were once able to get tourist visas to visit the islands, but that ended with the pandemic.

    “Kinmen, China and Taiwan are all part of the same nation, so it should be possible to visit, and I hope I can visit one day,” Shao said over a video connection – his eyes fixed on Kinmen.

    Like Shao, Chinese President Xi Jinping and the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) claim that Taiwan and its territory are part of China.

    Defences line the beaches of Kinmen where nationailsts beat back the communists in the wake of the 1949 civil war [File: Ann Wang/Reuters]

    Xi said in his New Year’s address that China’s unification with democratic Taiwan was an “historical inevitability“, and China has not ruled out the use of force to achieve unification. Last year Xi called on China’s armed forces to strengthen their combat readiness.

    In recent years the Chinese military has increased its pressure on Taiwan with almost daily airborne and maritime incursions close to Taiwan’s air and sea space. At times of particular tension, such as during the visit of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taipei, such manoeuvres have been accompanied by sabre-rattling rhetoric and large-scale military drills.

    Capsized boats, recriminations

    Recently, tensions have been rising near Kinmen as well.

    In February, two Chinese fishermen were killed when their speedboat capsized as they attempted to flee the Taiwanese coastguard when they were discovered fishing “within prohibited waters” about one nautical mile (1.8km) from the Kinmen archipelago.

    Since then, the Chinese coastguard has stepped up its activities around Kinmen.

    Zhu Fenglian, a spokesperson for the Chinese government’s Taiwan Affairs Office, said the February incident was “vicious” and stressed the waters were “traditional” fishing grounds for fishermen in China and Taiwan. There were no off-limits waters around Kinmen, she added.

    A second capsize was reported on Thursday, and on this occasion China asked for help from the Taiwan coastguard.

    Standing on the beach looking out towards Kinmen, Shao says hostilities are not the way to bring China and Taiwan together.

    “I want unification to happen peacefully,” he said.

    If that is not possible, he would prefer things to remain as they are.

    A Taiwan soidier kneeling by the graves of those who died defending Kinmen against China. The grtaves have small Taiwan flags
    Soldiers pay tribute to the fallen during a 2023 ceremony commemorating the 65th anniversary of China’s attack on Kinmen island [File: Chiang Ying-ying/Reuters]

    He knows that many of his friends feel the same way. According to Shao, if they go to Kinmen and Taiwan, it should be as visitors, not as fighters.

    “The Taiwanese haven’t done anything bad to us, so why should we go there to fight them?” he said, convinced that any war between China and Taiwan would result in significant casualties on both sides. “Unification with Taiwan is not worth a war.”

    No appetite for war

    A study published by the University of California San Diego’s 21st Century China Center last year suggests that Shao and his friends are not alone in opposing a war over Taiwan.

    The study explored Chinese public support for different policy steps regarding unification with Taiwan and found that launching a full-scale war to achieve unification was viewed as unacceptable by a third of the Chinese respondents.

    Only one percent rejected all other options but war, challenging the Chinese government’s assertion that the Chinese people were willing to “go to any length and pay any price” to achieve unification.

    Mia Wei, a 26-year-old marketing specialist from Shanghai is not surprised by such results.

    “Ordinary Chinese people are not pushing the government to get unification,” she told Al Jazeera.

    “It is the government that pushes people to believe that there must be unification.”

    At the same time, support for a unification war turned out to be close to the same level found in similar studies from earlier years, indicating that despite the growing tension in the Taiwan Strait and renewed talk about taking control of Taiwan, there has not been a corresponding increase in support for more forceful measures.

    Wei believes that Chinese like herself are more concerned with developments inside their country.

    “First there was COVID, then the economy got bad and then the housing market got even worse,” she said. “I think Chinese people have their minds on more important things than unification with Taiwan.”

    According to Associate Professor Yao-Yuan Yeh who teaches Chinese Studies at the University of St Thomas in the United States, there is currently little reason for Chinese people to be more supportive of conflict with Taiwan.

    US President Joe Biden has on several occasions said the US will defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. At the same time, the US has been strengthening its military ties with countries such as Japan and the Philippines – Taiwan’s immediate neighbours to the north and the south.

    “There is no guarantee of a quick victory in a war over Taiwan,” Yeh told Al Jazeera.

    “Also, many people in China have business partners, friends and family in Taiwan, and therefore don’t want to see any harm come to the island and its people.”

    The study also showed that young Chinese were more averse towards forceful policy measures than earlier generations.

    “Young people are usually among the first to be sent to the battlefield so naturally they are more opposed to war,” Yeh said.

    Shao from Xiamen thinks that any hope of victory in a war over Taiwan and its partners will require the mobilisation of a lot of young people like him.

    “And I think many young people in China [will] refuse to die in an attack on Taiwan.”

    Not an issue for debate

    Regardless of what Chinese people might think, unifying Taiwan with the mainland will remain a cornerstone of the CCP’s narrative, according to Eric Chan who is a senior fellow at the Global Taiwan Institute in Washington, DC.

    “Unification is not a topic that is up for any sort of debate with the general public,” he told Al Jazeera.

    A Chinese guided missile destroyer moored in Xiamen. In the foreground, a man is fishing from a small boat.
    China has become increasingly assertive in its claim over Taiwan and has not ruled out the use of force to achieve its aims [File: Andy Wong/AP Photo]

    Although the Chinese leadership often claims that China is a democratic country where the party is guided by the will of the Chinese people, there are no regular national elections or free media while online discourse is restricted and regularly censored. Speaking out against the CCP can also result in criminal convictions.

    Since Xi became president in 2012, crackdowns on civil liberties have intensified, and Xi has centralised power around himself to a degree unprecedented since the rule of Mao Zedong – the man who led the communists to victory against the nationalists and became communist China’s first leader.

    During Mao’s rule, reforms and purges of Chinese society led to the deaths of millions of Chinese people, while upwards of 400,000 Chinese soldiers died as a result of his decision to enter the 1950-1953 Korean War on North Korea’s side.

    But according to Chan, the days when a Chinese leader could expend tens of thousands of lives in such a manner are over.

    Recent government actions that exacted a heavy toll on citizens led to public pushback, and Xi did not appear immune.

    During the COVID pandemic, Xi ardently defended the country’s zero-COVID policy even though its mass testing and strict lockdowns had dire socioeconomic consequences. The government eventually abandoned the policy as the economy sank, and people took to the streets across China’s major cities demanding an end to the lockdowns, even calling for Xi to step down.

    As for war, the circumstances are also different. Unlike, for example, the Sino-Indian War of 1962 and the Sino-Vietnamese War of 1979, a battle for Taiwan would be existential for the communist party and Xi, according to Chan.

    “The party (CCP) would not have been threatened by a loss or high casualties in those wars,” he said.

    Today, Xi would need to assume that those types of losses would be unacceptable to the Chinese people, he added.

    Public outrage over a long unification war that might even end in a Chinese defeat could, in Chan’s view, endanger the party’s rule.

    Mindful of the mood of the Chinese people, Chan sees the CCP instead continuing to engage in low-cost grey zone operations against Taiwan while developing a Chinese military that would be able to score a swift victory.

    For Shao, however, any attempt to settle the issue through conflict would be a disaster.

    “I don’t think it will end well for anyone – not for those that have to fight it and not for the government that starts it,” he said.

    *Shao’s name has been changed to respect his wish for anonymity given the sensitivity of the topic.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Webinar: How Couples Can Turn Conflict into Reconnection and Personal Growth

    Webinar: How Couples Can Turn Conflict into Reconnection and Personal Growth

    [ad_1]

    Reignite the spark in your relationship and turn conflict into growth together.

    Join Roddy Young, a licensed therapist specializing in couples therapy, for a free webinar on “How Couples Can Turn Conflict into Reconnection and Personal Growth.”

    In this webinar, you’ll learn:

    • The key to understanding why we are attracted to our partners
    • What sparks conflict in even the strongest relationships
    • Powerful tools to turn arguments into opportunities for connection and growth

    This webinar is facilitated by Roddy Young, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and Imago Relationship Therapist.

    Watch a replay of the presentation here.

     

    [ad_2]

    magdalena jovanova

    Source link

  • U2, Genocide, And More: This Week In Breaking News March 9, 2024

    U2, Genocide, And More: This Week In Breaking News March 9, 2024

    [ad_1]

    Read more…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FF7 Rebirth: Where To Find All Seventh Infantry Members

    FF7 Rebirth: Where To Find All Seventh Infantry Members

    [ad_1]

    Screenshot: Square Enix / Claire Jackson / Kotaku

    Once you’ve assembled all your troops, it’s time to configure the marching order for the parade. Hit L2 to start arranging them. Different assemblies will influence the difficulty of the upcoming parade sequence across three performances. The higher the difficulty, the better the reward—and and the boost toyour relationship levels with Tifa and Aerith.

    If you choose security officers across the whole lineup, you’ll get the easiest parade sequences for all three performances. The difficulty levels will change in real time as you adjust the soldiers. So you can pick something that’s more balanced. But the most challenging and rewarding lineup consists of two grenadiers, two riot troopers, and one flame trooper.

    The parade sequence isn’t easy, especially considering all the running around you have to do to gather up your troops. While you may miss out on a chance to improve your relationship with Tifa and Aerith if you don’t perform well the first time, you can always go back to the parade sequence by selecting Chapter 4 from the chapter select after finishing the game.

    [ad_2]

    Claire Jackson

    Source link

  • Sweden To Join NATO

    Sweden To Join NATO

    [ad_1]

    Hungary’s parliament voted 188 to 6 in favor of allowing Sweden to join NATO, the final hurdle standing in the way of the Scandinavian country becoming the 32nd member of the military alliance, one year after neighboring Finland was admitted. What do you think?

    “That’s gonna be a big help when we pull out next year.”

    Lucy Moss, Grimoire Expert

    Biden Gives Americans Nuclear Launch Codes In Case Anything Ever Happens To Him

    “I feel better knowing Russia will think twice before attacking ABBA.”

    Austin Mabuza, Monologue Editor

    “I finally understood geopolitics and now I have to start all over again.”

    Kris Odling, unemployed

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russia warns NATO of certain war if West puts troops into Ukraine

    Russia warns NATO of certain war if West puts troops into Ukraine

    [ad_1]

    “In this case, we need to talk not about the likelihood, but about the inevitability [of a conflict]. That’s how we evaluate it,” said Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary.

    “These countries must also evaluate and be aware of this, asking themselves whether this corresponds to their interests, as well as the interests of the citizens of their countries,” Peskov added.

    Macron’s comments came at the tail end of a summit in Paris, where EU leaders gathered Monday to discuss ongoing support for Kyiv. Macron said defeating Russia is “indispensable” to Europe’s security and stability, and that EU leaders discussed the topic of Western troops in a “very free and direct” manner during the summit. 

    A domestic backlash quickly grew Tuesday against Macron’s comments, and was followed by Western allies pushing back against the floated move to put soldiers into Ukraine.

    German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said leaders in Paris agreed that “everyone must do more for Ukraine,” but that “one thing is clear: There will be no ground troops from European states or NATO.”

    A spokesperson for British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the U.K. has no plan for a “large-scale deployment” in Ukraine, and a Spanish government spokesperson said Madrid also disagrees with the idea of deploying European troops.

    [ad_2]

    Laura Kayali

    Source link

  • What Are We Fighting For?

    What Are We Fighting For?

    [ad_1]

    They were perfectly matched in so many ways. She was a young lawyer (land use law) and so was he (media rights). They were both Midwest transplants to Seattle. They were busy and ambitious, and loved to pack their free time with new experiences. When they first met, they’d venture out someplace new every weekend. They hopped in the car and drove up to Vancouver for the weekend to wander the open-air market or pop in for some late-night sushi. They headed off into the mountains for an overnight camping trip. Or they grabbed last-minute tickets to a play. They both worked long hours but loved to be spontaneous in their time off. 

    There was just one tiny problem. She wanted a puppy. He didn’t. 

    A year later, there was indeed a puppy—one that had grown into a big, happy, playful dog. But the marriage was ending. Divorce papers were signed. The two moved out of the house they’d bought together before they got married, the one they came home to the night of their wedding, still shaking the sparkly confetti the guests had tossed out of their hair and clothes, laughing. They split up all their furniture, books, pots and pans. She, of course, took the dog.

    How did a puppy break up this marriage?

    The fight started out simply: with a difference of opinion. He thought dogs were too much responsibility, too much work, too much commitment. You couldn’t leave a dog home for very long—you couldn’t even go away for the day. And dogs could get expensive. Didn’t they want to use their extra money in other ways? Hadn’t they talked about traveling?

    But his job required frequent business trips, and he was gone a lot, leaving her alone in the house, where she worked long hours from home. She felt lonely, and when he was away overnight she got spooked. They hadn’t really been traveling like they’d once talked about—why not get a puppy, a buddy for her to keep her company? She imagined the dog accompanying them on weekend hikes, riding in the car with its head out the window. It was nice to picture them as a threesome: a couple with their dog.

    They weren’t getting anywhere. They just kept looping around inside the same argument, with no resolution. His concerns about time, money, and commitment seemed so overblown—if he would just try it, she was sure, he’d see it wasn’t that much work! So, she decided: she would just get a puppy and give it to him as a gift. Once there was a real, live, adorable fuzzball in his lap, how could he re- sist? He’d come around.

    He did not come around.

    The conflict escalated. He was upset that she’d ignored him and done what she wanted to. She was upset that he continued to dig his heels in, even after she’d told him how important this was to her. To him, the puppy in the house was a constant reminder of how she’d completely disregarded how he felt and what was important to him. To her, his refusal to accept the dog felt like a rejection of her and her needs. Every little thing about the dog sparked a fight: Who would take him out. The vet bill. Having to add his food to the grocery list. Worse, they were fighting about other stuff now too—more than they ever had before.

    She started to notice how little he did around the house. Okay, fine, she thought, she’d do most of the dog stuff—it had been her idea. But he seemed to leave the rest of the housework to her too. Either he didn’t care, or he just expected it—is that what it would be like, she wondered, if they had a baby? For his part, the way she brought stuff up grated on him. She never just asked for help. She’d say, “I guess I’m doing the dishes again tonight,” and some little flash of anger inside him would make him snap, “Yeah, I guess so.” Later, feeling bad, he’d try to do more—he’d put a few loads of laundry through, clean the bathroom—but she never noticed.

    They were spending less and less time together. And one Friday afternoon, when he reminded her that he was going away for the weekend on a camping trip with an old high school buddy, she felt overwhelmed by anger and sadness.

    “Oh, so you’re just going to take off,” she said, suddenly on the verge of tears, “and I can stay home with this dog you never wanted.”

    Blindsided, he blew up. “What is the matter with you?” he shouted. “I’ve had this trip planned for months! It has nothing to do with the stupid dog!”

    There was fuel behind this fight, just under the surface, like underground oil feeding a fire: each of them had a hidden agenda.

    His hidden agenda: he wanted freedom and adventure.

    Her hidden agenda: she wanted a family.

    But they barely acknowledged these deeper truths to themselves, much less to each other.

    They retreated further and further from each other, each digging into his or her own separate foxhole, from which they lobbed accusations and criticisms like grenades. One day, she caught a bad cold and couldn’t take the dog out—he had to do it. He was filled with resentment every time he had to stop doing something important to clip the leash on—he hadn’t signed up for this! On another day, the puppy made his own sign of protest: he did his little dump right under the husband’s desk, where he worked when he was home.

    He said he wasn’t cleaning it up.

    She said she wasn’t cleaning it up.

    That tiny pile of poo marked the line nobody would cross—to cross it would be to admit defeat, to let the other side win.

    When they sold the house in the divorce, they had a cleaning service come in. The cleaners moved from room to room, washing away all the evidence of this couple’s life together—their fingerprints and cooking spices, dust and left-behind papers—to make the space spotless for the prospective buyers who would be coming through, imagining themselves living there instead. And then they came to the desk.

    Do you know what happens when you leave dog poop for a long time?

    It turns into a hard, white lump.

    Yes, the punchline of this story is . . . mummified dog poop. And we’re sorry! But we’re telling you this story because it’s so universal: every couple has some small disagreement that won’t go away, snowballs, and turns into a huge blockage. And it seems so trivial! It’s easy to hear this story and think: What a terrible reason to break up a good marriage—over a puppy?

    Well, the fight wasn’t really about the puppy. Or the poop. The puppy represented major life philosophies for each person. When they fought about taking the dog out, or the vet bill, or who should perform the errand of shopping for dog food, they weren’t really fighting about those things. They were fighting about their values, their dreams, their vision of what they wanted out of marriage, and out of life. They were fighting about some really foundational stuff— stuff that would have been good for them to dig into, and might even have saved their marriage if they had. But they never got there. They never really figured out what they were actually fighting about, or how to talk to each other about it. Their fights became destructive, and eventually that strong relationship they’d once had splintered apart.

    This was a long time ago, before John started his work studying couples. He didn’t fully understand the depths of their conflict until much later, when his research taught him more about the science of relationships. In the end, he wasn’t able to help them. They did unfortunately split up. But since then, we have helped thousands of other couples who were just as gridlocked, just as stuck, just as desperately out of sync.

    In writing this book, we thought about that long-ago couple a lot. We wish we’d known then what we know now, with fifty years of research under our belt. If we could go back in time, this is the book we would write for them.

    [ad_2]

    Drs. John and Julie Gottman

    Source link

  • Country Stations Refuse To Play Beyoncé’s Music After Artist Condemns Iraq War

    Country Stations Refuse To Play Beyoncé’s Music After Artist Condemns Iraq War

    [ad_1]

    HOUSTON—Calling the popular musician traitorous for failing to support President George W. Bush in a time of crisis, thousands of country stations across America reportedly refused to play Beyoncé’s music Thursday after the artist condemned the Iraq War. “If she doesn’t want to support our troops risking their lives out there for the cause of freedom, then we don’t need her,” said country radio executive Hunter Roeloffs, one of many station owners who blacklisted the recent singles “Texas Hold ’Em” and “16 Carriages” after controversial comments in which the star expressed reservations about the U.S.-led Coalition invasion of Iraq—remarks that also led to a reported drop in ticket sales and Beyoncé losing a sponsorship deal with Lipton. “Unlike Miss Knowles, we’re proud Americans here at 100.3 the Bull. We support freedom, whether it’s here or in the Middle East. So when she says innocent lives will be lost, I can’t help but wonder how she could possibly think a bloodthirsty dictator like Saddam Hussein is innocent. And then there’s that line of hers about being ashamed of President Bush? Well, we’re ashamed of her. How about that?” At press time, Beyoncé had attracted additional criticism from the country music scene after rebranding herself as the Chicks.

    Green Giant Unveils New Lettuce That You Can Put Wig On And Pretend Is Your Wife

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Amnesty calls for war crimes probe over Myanmar military bombing of church

    Amnesty calls for war crimes probe over Myanmar military bombing of church

    [ad_1]

    The January attack in Sagaing killed 17 villagers, including two children, as they attended a Sunday service.

    Myanmar’s military should be investigated for war crimes over an air attack last month that killed 17 villagers, including two children, as they attended a Sunday church service, Amnesty International has said.

    Amnesty said photo and video analysis, as well as interviews with witnesses, indicated the Myanmar air force had dropped bombs on three locations near the St Peter Baptist Church in Kanan village on the morning of January 7.

    The village is in the Sagaing region, not far from Myanmar’s border with India.

    At least 20 people were injured.

    The damage is “consistent with air strikes”, the rights group said in a statement on Thursday. “The combined photo and video evidence indicates at least three impact locations, with craters consistent with aircraft bombs of approximately 250kg each.”

    The Myanmar military has previously denied responsibility for the attack, claiming no aircraft were operating in the area at the time.

    But Amnesty said a review of video taken during the strikes showed the “distinctive swept-wing silhouette of an A-5 fighter jet flying over the village”, noting that only the military flies the China-made aircraft. Moreover, satellite imagery from the Tada-U airbase near Mandalay showed active A-5 operations on the airfield while plane spotters had reported the takeoff, flight and landing of an A-5 consistent with that morning’s attack on Kanan.

    “The Myanmar military’s deadly attacks on civilians show no signs of stopping,” said Matt Wells, the director of Amnesty’s crisis response programme. “These attacks must be investigated as war crimes and the UN Security Council should refer the situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The perpetrators of these crimes under international law must be brought to justice.”

    The bombing caused widespread damage to buildings in the village [Courtesy of Amnesty International]

    Myanmar was plunged into crisis three years ago when the generals seized power from the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi triggering mass protests that evolved into armed resistance after the military responded with brutal force.

    At least 4,485 civilians have been killed since the coup, and violence has become increasingly widespread.

    Sagaing has been notorious for brutal assaults by the military, which has launched air attacks and burned villages as part of its long-held strategy known as “four cuts” that aims to separate its opponents from their potential civilian supporters.

    At the time of the church attack, Kanan village was under the control of a unit of the People’s Defence Force (PDF), an anti-coup armed group established by the National Unity Government of lawmakers removed in the coup and pro-democracy activists.

    ‘Toothless statements’

    There are growing calls for the international community to do more to address the deteriorating situation in Myanmar where the United Nations estimates at least 2.6 million people have been forced from their homes by the fighting and millions are in need of humanitarian assistance.

    Although the United States and its allies have imposed some sanctions, the response has largely been left to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a regional grouping that Myanmar joined in 1997.

    ASEAN agreed to the so-called Five Point Consensus to end the violence at an emergency meeting with Myanmar army chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing in April 2021, but the military regime has ignored the agreement and the bloc has done little to make it comply.

    “The crisis in Myanmar is escalating rapidly and the Myanmar people urgently need support and protection from the UN Security Council,” Marzuki Darusman, a member of the Special Advisory Council on Myanmar (SAC-M) and former chair of the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, said in a statement on Wednesday following a closed-door session of the council.

    Before the meeting, nine members of the 15-member council issued a statement calling on the military to end its attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure and free all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi.

    “It is simply not good enough for the Security Council to issue toothless statements and defer to an even more toothless ASEAN. The junta must face justice for its deplorable acts,” Darusman added.

    The exterior of the St Peter Baptist Church in Kanan after the attack. The windows have been blown out
    Attacks on religious buildings are war crimes under international law [Courtesy of Amnesty International]

    Fellow SAC-M member Chris Sedoti said the Security Council should have referred Myanmar to the ICC long ago.

    “If it can’t, or won’t, then others must act to finally bring the perpetrators of grave international crimes in Myanmar to justice through the ICC or a special tribunal,” said Sedoti, who was also part of the fact-finding mission.

    In 2018, the mission called for the investigation and prosecution of Min Aung Hlaing and his top military leaders for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes over its treatment of several ethnic and religious minorities in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan states, including the mostly Muslim Rohingya.

    The SAC-M was set up after the coup by a group of international independent experts to support the people of Myanmar in their fight for justice and accountability.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tucker Carlson faces media fury over Putin interview

    Tucker Carlson faces media fury over Putin interview

    [ad_1]

    But Carlson’s monologue, in which he lambasted Western media and claimed it wasn’t making an effort to hear Putin’s side of the story, has sparked backlash from American and Russian journalists.

    “Many journalists have interviewed Putin, who also makes frequent, widely covered speeches,” wrote Anne Applebaum, an American journalist and historian, on X (formerly Twitter). “Carlson’s interview is different because he is not a journalist, he’s a propagandist, with a history of helping autocrats conceal corruption.”

    Carlson, who was ousted by Fox last year, said the interview would be published “unedited” and “not behind a paywall” on his personal website. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov on Wednesday confirmed that the interview had already taken place, but did not share when it would air.

    While Western media outlets have done “scores of interviews” with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Carlson said, “not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview the president of the other country involved in this conflict, Vladimir Putin.”

    “Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine or what his goals are now,” he said. “They’ve never heard his voice. That’s wrong.”

    While it’s true that Carlson will be the first American to interview Putin since the start of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine almost two years ago, journalists from major outlets in the United States and Europe were quick to point out that this is not for lack of trying.



    [ad_2]

    Claudia Chiappa

    Source link

  • Biden Gives Americans Nuclear Launch Codes In Case Anything Ever Happens To Him

    Biden Gives Americans Nuclear Launch Codes In Case Anything Ever Happens To Him

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON—In an address from the White House carried live on television, President Joe Biden gave the nation the nuclear launch codes Monday in case anything were ever to happen to him. “Folks, I don’t plan on going anywhere anytime soon, but the fact is, I’m not always going to be around, and you need to be prepared to oversee our long-range and tactical nuclear weapons on that day,” said the commander-in-chief, who added that he had been holding onto the highly classified sequence of letters and numbers until he thought the nation was ready to responsibly operate its arsenal of 5,244 warheads. “Just write the codes somewhere safe so you don’t lose them. Because, listen, if I have to go away, you’re the president, understand? All of you are. Okay, you ready? The code is 3X52-4980.” At press time, the American public had reportedly launched an intercontinental ballistic missile at East Timor.

    Onion Explains: Global Nuclear Proliferation​

    [ad_2]

    Source link