Top World News
Descendants of Zimbabwe resistance heroes urge UK to locate looted skulls
Relatives call on institutions to help them find remains of ancestors who led fight against British colonisers in 1890s• Which human remains are held in UK museums – and where?Descendants of freedom fighters executed and beheaded in southern Africa by colonial British forces have called on the Natural History Museum in London and the University of Cambridge to help them find their ancestors’ looted skulls.Zimbabwean descendants of the first chimurenga heroes, who led an uprising against British colonisers in the 1890s, have long believed the museum and university hold several of the skulls. Continue reading...
Hegseth on thin ice as 'Republicans cannot wait to get rid of this guy': Dem lawmaker
Asked about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s standing with Congress to date, a Democratic lawmaker told the co-hosts of MS NOW’s “The Weekend” that there is a growing movement to see him gone.Appearing on Saturday morning, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) took his own shots at the controversial former Fox News personality, before he was asked, “Should Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, should he stick around? ““Oh, absolutely not,” he quickly replied. “And by the way, behind the scenes, Republicans cannot wait to get rid of this guy,” he added. “I mean, there was, there's some serious debate about whether [ex-DHS Secretary Kristi] Noem or Hegseth should go first.”“But for most of the time that I've been in Congress this year, most Republicans have said Hegseth first,” he continued. “I mean, that's literally where it is: Which one of these people is so bad that Trump should fire them first?”Asked who is gunning for Hegseth, he replied, “Well, there's a long list and many of them are on the Armed Services Committee. But the point is that none of them will say it in public. None of them have the courage to say any of this in public. Even when the Venezuela vote strikes started, I heard Republicans say, ‘If Biden were doing this, we would raise bloody hell,’ end quote, from Republicans. But they're totally cowed by Donald Trump and that's just so pathetic.” - YouTube youtu.be
Retired general cuts off MS NOW host in rush to drop the hammer on 'infuriating' Hegseth
Retired United States Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling did not give MS NOW host Jackie Alemany much of a chance to ask about comments made by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about Russian involvement in the Iran war on Saturday morning.Instead, he jumped the gun, talked over her, and hammered Hegseth, whom he dismissively referred to as a “former Fox host” earlier.Brought on to address the Pentagon’s highly criticized war propaganda videos, Alemany shared with him a clip of Hegseth in an upcoming “60 Minutes” report, blowing off reports that the Russians are helping Iran target American interests.With Hegseth saying, “I’m not worrying about that,” Hertling stopped Alemany in her tracks by blurting, “Jackie, that's a sidestep, and I'm going to tackle it before you even ask the question. I'm sorry.”“But it's infuriating to me as a soldier,” he continued. “I mean, I can remember not so long ago when Secretary Hegseth was a Fox News anchor and there were reports of Russia providing information that killed soldiers in Afghanistan and he went off the charts on President Biden. We now have a situation where Russia is contributing to to the intelligence that can lead to the potential danger of U.S. forces with Iran.” “As a military commander, I tell you, you look at all things within an area of operation. And if Russia is passing intelligence, and there's indicators that they are to Iran, and it's helping them to target U.S. military facilities, they should stand up against that,” he added.Hertling later apologized to Alemany and she laughed it off as a “pre-emptive strike.” - YouTube youtu.be
Trump allies warn he's caught in a 'toxic' trap as everything goes haywire: report
Donald Trump’s unrelenting drive to implement his policies has turned them into “liabilities” that threaten his next three years in office, and his allies are growing increasingly worried that he has painted himself into a corner.The past week has laid bare the consequences of Trump's overreach—a combination of policy missteps and self-inflicted damage that is tanking his poll numbers and his ability to command congressional support.A stagnant labor market and skyrocketing gas prices fueled by the Iran conflict are ravaging the economy. The sudden ouster of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has shone a harsh spotlight on the administration's deeply unpopular immigration agenda. Wall Street analysts are now warning that surging oil prices could trigger stagflation, and the cascade of bad news has jeopardized the GOP's ability to keep voters focused on Trump administration policies supposedly designed to ease the rising cost of living.One Trump ally, granted anonymity to speak freely, captured the political peril: "If you combine an economy that people don't like with a prolonged war that you know nobody in his base believes they voted for, that's a toxic problem." Though Trump isn't on the ballot this year, Republicans desperately need his approval ratings to improve if they hope to maintain control of Congress."Don't drag this war out," the person warned. "That's my best advice for the administration. The country is in no mood for a prolonged war."The Iran conflict has sent oil and gas prices soaring—pump prices have climbed more than 11 percent in a single week. With employers cutting payroll and Trump reshuffling his immigration leadership, the president has lost the upper hand on the two issues critical to GOP midterm success.Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist and former Trump State Department appointee, acknowledged the predicament: "We are a year into the Trump presidency, and it seems as if everything has changed but the economy. Now, as we head into the midterms, our only message on the economy is, 'You should thank us for the One Big, Beautiful Bill.' That's always going to be a challenge."Republican operatives are already resorting to damage control. One midterms strategist, speaking anonymously, offered blunt counsel: "Focus just on the local s--t, stop focusing on the world. Even if you obviously can't bring prices down, just do everything you can to make the people feel like the economy is getting better."You can read more here.
Trump threatens Iran with 'complete destruction' in over-the-top early morning war rant
In the early hours of Saturday morning, Donald Trump ramped up his Iran war rhetoric with the threat, “Today Iran will be hit very hard!” and menaced the country with “complete destruction.”At a time when polling shows the president’s military assault on the country is proving to be highly unpopular, Trump appears to be doubling down in his boast-filled Truth Social post.“Iran, which is being beat to HELL, has apologized and surrendered to its Middle East neighbors, and promised that it will not shoot at them anymore. This promise was only made because of the relentless U.S. and Israeli attack,” he wrote.“They were looking to take over and rule the Middle East. It is the first time that Iran has ever lost, in thousands of years, to surrounding Middle Eastern Countries. They have said, ‘Thank you President Trump.’ I have said, ‘You’re welcome!’’ he claimed. “Iran is no longer the ‘Bully of the Middle East,’ they are, instead, ‘THE LOSER OF THE MIDDLE EAST,’ and will be for many decades until they surrender or, more likely, completely collapse!”He then threatened, “Today Iran will be hit very hard! Under serious consideration for complete destruction and certain death, because of Iran’s bad behavior, are areas and groups of people that were not considered for targeting up until this moment in time,” before concluding, “Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”You can see his post here.
Trump is about to get a brutal history lesson
On Monday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth held a press briefing to justify the war in Iran. Praising Donald Trump’s lawlessness, he said, “America, regardless of what so-called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history … No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win.”Aside from such dangerous hubris befitting a 12-year-old boy, the most shocking aspect of Trump bombing Iran without Constitutional or Congressional authority is that the administration’s “planning” does not seem to match or even appreciate the risks involved. Many security analysts agree with Sen. Mark Kelly (R-AZ) and Trump that Iran should never be allowed to have nuclear weapons, because no state that exports jihadist martyrdom should have nuclear weapons. But the precarity of attacking a nation allegedly only one week away from nuclear capacity demands precision and sober objectives, not saber-rattling or changing rationales tweeted at two in the morning. The Trump administration’s lax and lawless messaging suggests either chilling indifference, lack of discipline, or rogue intentions, all dangerous characteristics in the context of nuclear weapons.Trump has not offered clear political or military objectives, nor explained how the use of force, at this time, is in our best national interest. Instead, Trump’s rationale for war keeps shifting, from immediate national security threats, to humanitarian concerns, to regime change, suggesting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played Trump to do what no other president was reckless enough to do in service to Israel’s interests, not our own. Even the laudable goal of eliminating Iran’s nuclear capacity becomes suspect in light of Trump’s worldwide victory tour last June, declaring that airstrikes then had “totally eradicated” Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. On June 25, 2025, the White House released an official statement titled “Iran's Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News.” Either Trump was lying then or he is lying now. It’s never smart to trust liars on matters of life and death.Anti-American sentimentHuman rights organizations reported that tens of thousands of Iranian civilians were executed in January for protesting their repressive governance under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He is now dead. Other than an estimated 15 percent of Iranians who support the Islamic Republic theocracy, no one will miss him, least of all families of people he tortured and slaughtered. But for everyone involved, in the absence of a clear strategy, purpose, method, or plan for what comes next, the only reliable predictor of outcome is the recent past. This is not the first time the U.S. has gone to war in the Middle East, seeking regime change. We’ve tried it multiple times, and in every case we have learned that the initial success of ousting a leader is not followed by the establishment of a long-term, stable, or Western-friendly alternative. Instead, just the opposite happens. When we create a power vacuum, someone even more dangerous, more radical, and more antagonistic rises to power. In fact, Khamenei came to power as a direct result of the last time the US sought regime change in Iran.Regime change effortsAmericans now slave to algorithms may have forgotten that we were responsible for putting the Islamic Revolution in motion. In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence organized a coup to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who was democratically elected, because he nationalized the Iranian oil industry. (Sound familiar?)After the overthrow, the U.S. reinstated Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who implemented such increasingly autocratic rule that the Iranians began to hate both him and the U.S., for putting him in power. Hatred of the Shah led to intense anti-American sentiment. The 1979 Islamic Revolution to get rid of the Shah ended with a new Islamic Republic empowering Ayatollah Khomeini and his extremist, stone-women-to-death-for-showing-their-hair clerics. We are now bombing Iran to topple the regime we caused.History suggests we are also repeating mistakes from other Middle East interventions:Iraq: In 2003, the US invaded Iraq under the color of a claim that it was developing weapons of mass destruction. The invasion removed Saddam Hussein, which lead to a power vacuum, sectarian violence and the rise of extremist groups like ISIS. More than 20 years later, Iraq remains destabilized.Afghanistan: Following 9/11, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power. After a 20-year occupation and US-led efforts at nation-building, the Taliban returned to power in 2021, after Joe Biden withdrew U.S. forces.Libya: In 2011, a U.S.-led NATO intervention was meant to protect civilians by removing Muammar al-Qaddafi. As in Iran today, there was no post-regime plan, which left a power vacuum and transformed Libya into a failed state of widespread misery, a current training ground for militant extremists.Syria: Also in 2011, the U.S. provided aid and military assistance to opposition groups in the Syrian Civil War with the stated objective of pressuring Bashar al-Assad to leave office. He remained in control of much of the country until 2024, even using chemical agents against his own citizens.The results are clear and consistent: toppling Middle East authoritarians has, in every case, led to the emergence of even more radicalized factions, resulting in more danger and unintended national security consequences for America.In just over a year, while seeking praise as a “peacemaker,” Trump has authorized military action in seven nations. In Iran, we are once again ignoring history, this time under an administration that can’t seem to comprehend laws, norms, or nuance. Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. She writes the Substack, The Haake Take.
Did Trump's son-in-law use diplomacy to lure Iranian leaders into a death trap?
Jared Kushner grew up sleeping in Benjamin Netanyahu’s bed.That isn’t a metaphor or hyperbole. Netanyahu, during his visits to New York over the decades, was close enough to the Kushner family that, as the New York Times reported, he slept in Jared’s childhood bedroom. Jared Kushner didn’t grow up watching Netanyahu on the news the way the rest of us did. He grew up knowing the man as something close to a family institution.And that man, who has said publicly that he has “yearned” to destroy Iran’s military and political leadership “for 40 years,” is the same man whose government may have been coordinating directly with Kushner in the days before the most consequential American military action since the invasion of Iraq or the Vietnam War.We need to ask the question that official Washington is too timid, too compromised, or too captured by the moment’s war fever to ask: “Was Jared Kushner sitting across from Iranian negotiators in good faith? Or was he trying to get the Iranian leadership to meet together so Netanyahu could kill them all in one single decapitating strike?”Here’s what we know. The third round of nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran wrapped up in Geneva on Feb. 26th and 27th. The Omani foreign minister, who’d been mediating the talks for months, told CBS News on the eve of the bombing that a deal was “within our reach” and that Iran had fully given in to American demands and agreed it would never produce nuclear material for a bomb, or an ICBM capable of striking the United States.A fourth round had already been scheduled for Vienna the following week to work through the technical details following final discussions in Tehran. The Iranian foreign minister told reporters his team was ready to stay and keep talking for as long as it took.And then, less than 48 hours after those talks in Switzerland concluded, the bombs began to fall.On the morning of Feb. 28th, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council was gathered together in their offices for meetings. That body, the one that manages Iran’s nuclear dossier and makes the regime’s most consequential decisions, is exactly where you would expect the Iranian leadership to be sitting after a round of talks with America that their own foreign minister was calling “historic.”They were almost certainly deliberating whether to accept or reject Kushner's American proposal. And according to the Wall Street Journal, American and Israeli intelligence had verified that senior Iranian leaders would be gathered at three locations that could be struck simultaneously. How they knew that is, as the Journal carefully noted, still unknown.In other words, Iran’s entire decision-making apparatus was assembled in one place most likely because they were in the middle of an active negotiation with Jared Kushner. The talks had created a predictable, intelligenceable window.Diplomats who were part of the earlier rounds of talks now tell reporters that the Iranian side has come to believe they’d been misled, and that Tehran now views the Witkoff-Kushner negotiations as, in their words, “a ruse designed to keep Iran from expecting and preparing for the surprise strikes.”That’s not the assessment of Iranian state media spinning a narrative after a military defeat; it’s the conclusion of people who were in the room, speaking to American journalists, on the record.Now layer on top of that what we know about who Witkoff was meeting with in the days before they sat down with the Iranians. He flew to Israel and was briefed directly by Netanyahu and senior Israeli defense officials and then, with Kushner, flew to Oman and Geneva and sat across the table from the Iranian negotiators.The man who briefed Kushner’s partner (Witkoff) before those talks — Netanyahu — is the same man who said on the night the bombs fell that “this coalition of forces allows us to do what I have yearned to do for 40 years.” He wasn’t even remotely subdued or reluctant about the possibility of the Middle East going up in flames, perhaps even igniting World War III. He was, instead, triumphant that he finally got an American president to do something he’d been unsuccessfully pushing for decades.We also know that the Trump regime’s explanations for why the attacks happened when they did have collapsed into open contradiction. Secretary of State Marco Rubio initially told reporters the US struck because Israel was going to attack anyway and Iran would have retaliated against American forces. Trump then went on television and flipped the scenario upside-down, saying he might’ve “forced Israel’s hand.”The two most senior officials in the administration told two diametrically opposite stories within 48 hours of each other, and neither story explains why the diplomacy that the Omani mediator called substantively successful — that essentially got America everything we said we wanted — was abandoned without the final round.None of this proves that Kushner was running a deliberate double-cross operation designed to concentrate Iranian leadership in a killable location. What it does prove, though, is that the question is entirely legitimate and demands an answer under oath.This is not the first time in American history that such a question has had to be asked, or that it damaged America’s reputation on the world stage. In October of 1972, Henry Kissinger stood before the cameras and told the world that “peace is at hand” in Vietnam. The Paris negotiations, he assured everyone, were on the verge of ending the war.But it was a lie: two months later, Nixon ordered Operation Linebacker II, the most intensive bombing campaign of the entire war, dropping more tonnage on North Vietnam in twelve days than had been dropped in all of 1969 and 1970 combined.The Paris Peace Accords were signed in January 1973 on terms that serious historians have long argued were not meaningfully different from what had been on the table long before the bombing. Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize for those negotiations. His North Vietnamese counterpart, Le Duc Tho, however, refused to accept his share of the prize, saying that peace had not actually been achieved and the Vietnamese had been deceived because the negotiations were a sham. And he was right: the war dragged on for two more years and was ended by Jerry Ford with the fall of Saigon.The question that has haunted the world since those 1973 negotiations is the same question hanging over Kushner’s Geneva talks today: were the talks ever meant to succeed on their own terms, or were they simply a setup to destroy the Iranian leadership even if they gave us everything we wanted?There’s also the Ronald Reagan precedent. His campaign was credibly accused of running a back-channel to Iran to delay the release of American hostages held in Tehran so that Jimmy Carter couldn’t get a pre-election boost from securing their freedom. It took decades for anything close to a full picture to emerge, but now we know that the Reagan campaign successfully committed that treason just to get him into the White House in 1980.We don’t have decades this time. A war is under way and Americans are already dying. The leadership of a modern, developed country of ninety million people has been decapitated. And every foreign ministry on Earth is watching and drawing conclusions about whether they’ll ever again trust American diplomacy.If the Iranians were right that they were “negotiated” into a kill box, no government facing an existential American ultimatum will ever be able to assume our good faith again.The damage this administration is doing to American credibility isn’t abstract or temporary: when a country uses the negotiating table as a targeting opportunity, it poisons the well for every administration that comes after it.North Korea is watching. Iran’s neighbors are watching. China is watching. The next time an American president sends an envoy somewhere with a genuine offer of peace, why would anyone believe it? Le Duc Tho knew the answer to that question when Kissinger betrayed his Vietnamese negotiating partners in 1973. The world is apparently relearning it now.Congress has the constitutional power and the institutional obligation to call Kushner and Witkoff before investigative committees and ask them directly: What did you know about Israeli targeting plans during the Geneva talks? When did you know it? What were you instructed to accomplish or delay? Did you communicate with Netanyahu’s government during the negotiations themselves?The man at the center of this diplomacy grew up treating Benjamin Netanyahu like a member of the family. That’s not a reason to assume guilt, but it sure as hell is a reason to demand answers, loudly, now, before the war makes the asking impossible.Thom Hartmann is a New York Times best-selling author and SiriusXM talk show host. His Substack can be found here.
'Whining' Republicans secretly trash Trump's Iran war behind his back: lawmaker
WASHINGTON — Republicans are happy to criticize President Donald Trump’s war on Iran behind closed doors but “willing to give up congressional power” when given chances to actually rein him in, a prominent Democrat charged, shortly before the House of Representatives rejected a bipartisan attempt to assert its constitutional powers.“There is an incredible sense in the Congress in the last year that so many Republicans have been willing to give up congressional power,” Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT) told Raw Story at the Capitol. Republicans, Balint said, “all tell you behind closed doors a whole variety of things they don't like about what's happening. “If you pick your head up and all of a sudden your power is gone, don't whine about it because you gave it away.”‘I’m not stupid’Under Article One of the U.S. Constitution — and the 1973 War Powers Resolution — only Congress can declare war.In reality, presidents have long ignored such strictures.Balint was speaking shortly before the House considered a war powers resolution that would have forced the Trump administration to pause strikes on Iran.“I'm not stupid,” Balint, a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, said.“I can count. I don't think we're going to have the votes, but I think in every opportunity we have to assert our Article I powers, we have to keep doing these actions that show that we understand that every time we don't stand up to [Trump], legislative powers are slipping away.”Another Democrat, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), said such votes were important, to “get people on the record.”The record for the ensuing vote showed the resolution was rejected 219-212, with Republican Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Warren Davidson (R-OH) voting yes, while four Democrats voted no.Massie co-sponsored the resolution with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), his partner in pressuring the Trump administration over the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his links to powerful figures, prominently including the president himself.Davidson, a former military officer, is usually a loyal supporter of the Republican line.On the floor of the House, he said, “Make no mistake, Iran is an enemy of the United States. As our military engages them, they do so justly. Unfortunately, they are not yet doing so constitutionally.“For some, this debate will be about whether we should even be fighting in Iran. For me, the debate is more fundamental: is the president of the United States, regardless of the person holding the office, empowered to do whatever he wants? “That’s not what our constitution says.”‘Whatever it takes to win’Amid continued confusion over Trump’s aims in attacking Iran — currently by air and at sea and at the cost of six American lives and more than 1,000 Iranians killed — it was reported on Thursday that strikes could extend until September. Raw Story asked one senior Republican if that bothered him.“Not worried at all,”Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) replied “Trump knows what he’s doing.”Raw Story pressed: Was Norman really saying he would be okay with such a lengthy campaign, with all its attendant dangers for wider conflict through the Middle East and the world?“Whatever it takes to win,” Norman said.'Spiraling out of control'Balint considered another pressing issue: Republicans’ reluctance to even say Trump has taken America to war, despite the president’s own use of the word.“You can't call it a ‘military action,’ that it has a very short timeline, when this is the chatter,” Balint said, of the reports of a possible September end date.“We knew that it's spiraling out of control … and again, like, where's the opposition within his own party?”
The 3 words a Trump commander just used that should keep you up at night
There is so much chaotic news coming out of this White House that it’s tough to focus on the urgency of any single story.But nothing jolted me quite like this week’s Iran War revelation that a combat unit commander urged noncommissioned officers to motivate U.S. troops by telling them Donald Trump had been “anointed by Jesus,” and that the conflict was “all part of God’s divine plan” to bring about Armageddon and Biblical End Times.I’d assumed the other guys were the fundamentalists here.Thankfully, the above disclosure sparked hundreds of complaints from service members across all branches of the armed forces to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) — a group I hadn’t known existed.Extremist Christian rhetoric is utterly incompatible with any sound judgment, much less strategic conduct of warfare. It is the precise opposite. It’s how you get kamikaze combatants eager to die for the cause and send body counts soaring. It’s how you generate fighters operating out of crazed zealotry rather than tactical reason.It's also how you destroy any semblance of a chance for a diplomatic solution. To religion-driven radicals fighting a war framed as a defense of God’s will, negotiation itself can feel like a betrayal of the cause.If you’re fighting for sacred dominance — for “My god is cooler than your god” belief — anything less than complete annihilation of the infidel enemy is unthinkable. You don’t attempt to converse with evil itself.If you’re talking about Armageddon and the End Times, you’re referring to termination of the world, as cited in the Book of Revelation, and a renewed Creation while welcoming the return of Christ.Let me add here that while I accept and appreciate everyone’s religious freedom and work hard to disparage none of it, even though it’s not my thing, I’m not terribly keen on this whole planet destruction deal. That kind of infringes on my right to continue living on earth. So, I have to push back.Here is what I believe with all of my heart and soul: you can fight people and do battle with their beliefs and principles but you can’t effectively go to war against (or with) a spirit. It gets tricky when you start using dogma to inspire. That whole separation of church and state idea comes into play, and those who defend the division are branded as antagonists.I’ve long believed that more monstrous behavior and immorality has been perpetrated in the name of religion than any other factor, since the dawn of time.What’s undeniable is that a religious war is much tougher — if not outright impossible — to limit. You can use it to justify any and all atrocities, because if the war effort is framed as a holy mission, the opponent is reduced to being less than human.How do you fight people who are attaching their virtue to the return of an immortal being, of God’s purported chosen son?You don’t.In this clash, the adversary isn’t merely on the other side of a theological divide but fully dehumanized. In that scenario, restraint and understanding collapse. Rivals become demonic. All bets are off.The obvious issue here is that we have a Secretary of “War,” the execrable Pete Hegseth, who is a rabid evangelical Christian and raging alcoholic who has no understanding of limits. He proudly integrates faith into his identity, not to mention his government job. His relationship with Jesus Christ is personal. The man has a Jerusalem Cross tattooed on his chest.Again, it wouldn’t matter what Hegseth’s beliefs were if they didn’t so profoundly impinge on the rest of us. He’s far more devoted to his concept of God than he is to the human population. He opens Pentagon events by giving “all glory to God,” which is so far over the line for a public servant that it leaves one speechless.Hegseth appears to truly believe that any war he fights is about eternal destiny and maintains that God commands his actions. But of course, in this perception, “God” is simply what Hegseth calls his thoughts. He couldn’t go out and mow down 30 people with an AR-15 and justify it by saying, “God told me to do it” … though some have tried.It’s simply a fact that when God enters into the military conversation, nothing anyone else insists upon can diverge from such pious certainty. Excessive brutality becomes almost inevitable because purported faith rationalizes your basest instincts and rages.To bring it back to our soldiers being told they’re carrying out “God’s divine plan,” the biggest problem is that it plants the idea in their heads that rules of combat no longer exist, and the spiritual ends justify any means.You can defend dishonorable conduct because you’re backed by a deeper calling that invites martyrdom, deepening conviction further. Volatility is guaranteed to ratchet up.Referring to Armageddon with such lustful excitement is the kind of bombast that inspires thoughts of nuclear options. It has no business being used to motivate our fighting forces.Once we cross that line of fanaticism, there’s really no turning back.Ray Richmond is a longtime journalist/author and an adjunct professor at Chapman University in Orange, CA.
US grants waiver to allow India to buy Russian oil amid Iran war
‘Stopgap measure’ designed to keep oil flowing into global market as Middle East crisis disrupts crude shipmentsBusiness live – latest updatesThe US has temporarily allowed India to buy Russian oil currently stuck at sea in an effort to keep global supplies flowing and temper further price increases.The US treasury has issued a 30-day waiver allowing India to buy Russian oil, having previously imposed heavy sanctions related to the war in Ukraine. Continue reading...
Weight-loss jab could be made for $3 a month, study finds
Cheap semaglutide, the drug in Ozempic and Wegovy, could help millions with diabetes and obesity in 160 countriesWeight-loss jabs such as Wegovy could be made for just $3 a month, according to new analysis, potentially making the treatment available to millions in poorer countries as patents expire.More than a billion people live with obesity worldwide, with rates rising fast in lower-income nations as they shift to westernised diets and more sedentary lifestyles. Continue reading...
Philippines orders energy cuts in response to Middle East war
South-east Asian country limits air conditioning and travel for public officials amid soaring fuel pricesMiddle East crisis – live updatesThe Philippines is searching for ways to conserve energy in response to surging fuel costs, with public officials ordered to cut back on air conditioning usage and reduce travel.All national government agencies, state universities and colleges, and local government branches have been told to reduce fuel consumption by at least 10% in response to the crisis in the Middle East. Government offices have been told to adopt flexible work arrangements, and to set air conditioning units no lower than 24 degrees. Continue reading...
