Connect with us

Featured

Russians Paid Bounties To Militants Which Resulted In Deaths Of US Soldiers

Published

on

flag of Russia and USA

According to the intelligence gathered from the US army interrogations of captured militants, it is believed that Taliban-linked militants were offered bounties from Russian troops to assassinate coalition forces in Afghanistan. Such bounties are linked to the deaths of several US service members.

Many people familiar with the situation said it is still unclear exactly how many Americans or coalition troops from other countries may have been killed or targeted under the program. US forces in Afghanistan suffered a total of 26 deaths from enemy gunfire or bombs in the past two years, with 10 coming in 2018, and 16 in 2019. Fortunately, this year brought only two casualties. Several service members were killed by something called “green on blue” hostile incidents which are conducted by the members of Afghan security forces. However, these are believed to have been infiltrated by the Taliban.

This information was passed up from the U.S. Special Operations forces in Afghanistan and led to a restricted high-level White House meeting in late March, the people said.

This meeting in turn led to deeper discussions about potential responses to the Russian action, going from diplomatic expressions of disapproval and warnings to sanctions, according to two of the people. These people and others who discussed the matter spoke on the condition of anonymity because of its sensitivity.

The CIA reviewed, and later confirmed intelligence caused tension about the appropriate path forward, a senior U.S. official said. The administration’s special envoy for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, favored facing the Russians directly about the matter, while some National Security Council officials in charge of Russia were much more opposed to taking immediate action, the official said.

As of yet, it’s unclear where those discussions led. Confirming such intelligence is a process that can last weeks, typically involving the CIA and the National Security Agency, which captures foreign cellphone and radio transmissions. The final drafting of any policy options in response would be the burden of the national security adviser Robert C. O’Brien.

The CIA assessment took some time, and coincided with the scaling back and slowing down of a number of government functions as the coronavirus pandemic began to take hold, two people said.

Asked to comment, John Ullyot, an NSC spokesman, said that “the veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated.” The CIA and the Defense and State departments declined to comment.

Both Russia and the Taliban have dismissed the existence of the program.

Among the coalition of NATO forces in Afghanistan, the British were the only ones informed, and only last week.

The biggest controversy in Washington is the President’s denial of knowledge of such information.

Trump on Sunday confirmed statements by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and the White House press secretary that he received no briefing on the subject, and he referred in tweets to “so-called reports” by “Fake News.”

“Nobody briefed or told me, [Vice President] Pence or Chief of Staff [Mark Meadows] about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an ‘anonymous source’ by the Fake News . . . Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on us,” Trump said on Twitter, insisting that “nobody’s been tougher on Russia than the Trump administration.”

Trump’s Twitter remarks didn’t exactly clarify if he didn’t know that the intelligence assessment existed in the first place or that he didn’t know anything at all. Richard Grenell, who served as acting director of national intelligence until last month, tweeted that “I never heard this. And it’s disgusting how you continue to politicize intelligence.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday joined other lawmakers in calling for the administration to provide Congress with an explanation and expressing concern about the situation.

“This is as bad as it gets, and yet the president will not confront the Russians on this score, denies being briefed,” Pelosi said on ABC News’s “This Week.”

“But he wants to ignore,” she said, “he wants to bring them back to the G-8 despite the annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine, despite what they yielded to [Putin] in Syria, despite [Russian President Vladimir Putin’s] intervention into our election, which is well documented by our intelligence community, and despite now possibly this allegation, which we should have been briefed on.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham tweeted that “I expect the Trump Administration to take such allegations seriously and inform Congress immediately as to the reliability of these news reports.”

In a second tweet, Graham said it was “Imperative Congress get to the bottom” of the Russian offer “to pay the Taliban to kill American soldiers with the goal of pushing America out of the region.”

Rep. Liz Cheney, a high-ranking member of the House GOP leadership, also took to Twitter on Sunday to say that if the report of Russian bounties “is true, the White House must explain” why the president wasn’t briefed, who did know and when, and “what has been done in response to protect our forces & hold Putin responsible.”

A third person familiar with the issue said that “I don’t think that anybody withheld anything and screwed up by not getting to the president on time.” Until “you were absolutely sure of the intelligence and the NSC had drawn up policy options, you weren’t going to walk into the Oval Office,” the person said.

So the issue is not when the president was briefed, the person said, but rather, “now that you are aware of it, what are you going to do about it? That’s where the focus should be.”

For more click

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Deportation

Deportation as a Weapon: New Frontline of Palestinian Rights in the US

Published

on

Deportation-as-a-Weapon

The first time Mahmoud Khalil’s name began circulating beyond activist circles, it was not because of a speech or a protest, but due to a legal notice – a deportation order.

In the 21st century, it is appalling to see people’s right to life and other basic human rights being ridiculed. In the larger picture, the deportation drive is a hidden assault on whoever talks about the rights of the Palestinians in the United States.

A Case That Refused to Stay Quiet

Mahmoud Khalil is a Palestinian activist based in the United States. His work has focused on raising awareness about Gaza and advocating for Palestinian rights through public events and campus-linked activism.

Since Israel is being largely supported in the West, anyone who talks about the fundamental rights of the people of Gaza is dealt with extreme brutality. In this context, the Federal agencies of the United States moved forward with his deportation proceedings even though he is a permanent American citizen and married to a US citizen too.

It is not about Mahmoud Khalil or any individual but about a greater cause that is to allow the freedom of speech, expression, and association.

Palestinian Rights and the Mayor of New York

Zohran Mamdani, a prominent elected official, publicly defended Khalil, arguing that deportation should not be used as a tool against political expression. In doing so, Mamdani shifted the conversation from immigration procedure to constitutional principle.

His message remains clear: “advocacy for Palestinian rights is not a crime, and deportation should not become a backdoor method of punishing dissent.”

The response was swift, and the supporters praised the stance as a rare act of political courage. Critics accused Mamdani of shielding extremism. Media coverage intensified, and Khalil’s case became symbolic.

People are dying in Gaza due to bombings, famine, poor health, and absolutely no sense of security. In this environment, instead of allowing the people of Gaza to breathe, it is inhumane that their voices are being silenced.

Deportation and the Chilling Effect

Immigration law experts note that deportation proceedings are uniquely powerful. Unlike criminal trials, they operate in a separate legal universe—one with fewer protections, lower evidentiary thresholds, and limited public scrutiny.

For activists who are students, workers, or asylum-seekers, this vulnerability is well understood.

Civil rights groups have documented a growing sense of fear among foreign-born activists involved in Palestine-related advocacy. Some report withdrawing from public organizing, while others avoid protests altogether, worried that visibility could trigger legal consequences unrelated to their conduct.

Since the escalation of the Gaza war, US campuses have seen a surge in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. These demonstrations came alongside suspensions, surveillance concerns, and disciplinary actions. Khalil’s case sits squarely within this context.

A Broader Pattern Takes Shape

Across the US, Palestinian and pro-Palestinian activists, especially those without citizenship, describe increased scrutiny. Immigration status has become a pressure point, a way to narrow the space for political engagement without directly confronting free speech protections.

Moreover, some legal scholars point out that while citizens may face arrest or prosecution for protest-related activity, non-citizens face an additional, existential risk: expulsion.

This asymmetry reshapes activism. Ultimately, it creates two classes of dissent—those who can speak and those who must calculate the cost of every word.

Where the World is Heading

The world conscience would definitely be questioned in the annals of history when the chapter of Palestine comes. The world is getting divided among the nations that support the Palestinian right to existence and the other ones that do not support this very basic human right.

In his book, “On Palestine”, Ilan Pappe and Noam Chomsky clearly described the atrocities by Israel and the ground-breaking support it gets from the West. Peppe even claimed that there is ethnic cleansing being done in Palestine by Israel.

In fact, the current deportation trends are about the advocacy tied to Palestine. The question is how a responsible democracy responds when uncomfortable voices refuse to appear.

As one civil liberties advocate put it: “You don’t have to win every case to change the climate. You just have to make people afraid.”

Ultimately, this is about changing the political climate and making people afraid of speaking against Israel or in favor of Palestine. The outcome of Khalil’s case remains uncertain. However, the signals it sends to activists, institutions, and the state are already unmistakable.

In today’s world, speaking about Gaza can follow you far beyond the protest!

Continue Reading

Featured

Life Inside Gaza’s Tents: Cold Nights, Illness, and Endless Waiting

Published

on

Life-Inside-Gazas-Tents

Before sunrise, the camp is already awake. A woman steps carefully between puddles that did not exist the night before. To add more to the inhumane conditions, rainwater has mixed with waste and ash, turning the ground into a thin, foul-smelling slurry. She is carrying two empty containers, hoping the water point has not run dry again today.

Nearby, a child coughs, a persistent dry cough that has become common in the tents since winter set in. This is just a glimpse of life now for hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza. This is not a story of a temporary stop, nor of an emergency night or two, but of a prolonged existence inside fabric shelters that were never meant to last months.

According to the United Nations, around 1.7 million people remain displaced across Gaza. Not only that, a large share of them is living in tents, plastic shelters, or overcrowded informal sites. These sites are often pitched on rubble, farmland, or roadsides. The ceasefire might have changed the tempo of the war but for those in the camps, it did not restore normal life at all.

From Homes to Tents

Entire neighborhoods across Gaza have been flattened or rendered uninhabitable. As per the UN satellite assessments, well over half of Gaza’s housing stock has been damaged or completely destroyed, leaving families with no realistic option to return.

Tents were supposed to be temporary, but as the atrocities continue to inflict the people of Gaza, now these are standing for months.

Moreover, most of those tents offer no insulation. At night, cold air moves freely through torn seams. During rain, water pools inside, soaking thin mattresses and blankets. When storms hit, some tents collapse entirely, forcing families to crowd into neighboring shelters or even sleep outdoors until replacements arrive — if they arrive at all.

These are not the conditions for life to even exist. Aid agencies describe these sites less as camps and more as open-air holding zones, where survival depends on irregular deliveries of water, food, and fuel.

Smoke, Plastic, and the Air People Breathe

With fuel scarce and electricity almost nonexistent, many families burn whatever they can find to keep warm or cook food. Plastic packaging, scraps of rubber, and mixed waste are common substitutes.

The smoke hangs low in the evenings. Burning plastic releases toxic fumes that aggravate respiratory problems, especially among children and older people. A few clinics, which are fortunately left, operating inside or near displacement sites report rising cases of persistent coughs, chest infections, and eye irritation, conditions that are difficult to treat in overcrowded settings with limited medicine.

For many families, the choice is brutal. Either to breathe toxic smoke or to endure freezing nights. This is like a Hobson’s choice for them to live in these conditions.

Childhood on Hold

Children make up nearly half of Gaza’s population, and many are growing up almost entirely inside tents.

There is no school routine, no playground, and no sense of safety after dark. Parents describe children waking at night from cold, fear, or hunger. It is not surprising that the aid workers are noting signs of trauma, including withdrawal, bed-wetting, sudden aggression, and silence.

Mental health professionals working with humanitarian teams have warned that prolonged displacement, especially under such harsh conditions, can leave long-term psychological scars. On the other hand, counselling services are scarce, and survival needs usually come first.

For many children, days pass without structure. Time is measured not by lessons or play, but by queues for water, food distributions, and the arrival, or absence, of aid trucks.

Rain, Sewage, and the Winter Toll

The appalling living conditions were already very severe, but in the winter, it makes them tenfold, turning shelters into hazards.

Heavy rainfall has flooded multiple displacement sites, washing sewage into living areas and soaking tents beyond repair. In some camps, families have raised bedding on bricks or broken furniture in an attempt to stay dry.

Humanitarian reports, including those from Transparency International, document tents collapsing under wind and rain, forcing repeated displacement even within camps. Each move strips families of what little stability they have managed to create.

Cold weather has compounded illness. Without proper clothing, heating, or medical care, respiratory infections have become harder to manage. Clinics, already overstretched, struggle to cope with demand.

A Ceasefire Without a Way Home

For people living in tents, the ceasefire did not bring clarity. Some families hoped it would mean a return home. Instead, many areas remain inaccessible, unsafe, or destroyed. In some cases, new evacuation orders have continued, forcing further movement even after the fighting slowed.

Aid workers say uncertainty is one of the heaviest burdens. Families do not know whether to rebuild makeshift shelters, prepare to move again, or wait for instructions that may never come.

“We Are Still Here”

In the camps, people talk less about politics and more about endurance and survival.

They talk about missing ordinary things, like doors that lock, floors that are dry, and nights without smoke. They talk about children growing up too fast, about illness that lingers, about days that blend into each other.

One displaced man summed it up simply: “We are alive, but this is not living.”

In a nutshell, survival continues, measured in blankets, liters of water, and the hope that tomorrow will bring something other than uncertainty to breathe.

Continue Reading

Featured

Board of Peace Explained: New Global Peace Architecture or Another Power Play?

Published

on

Board-of-Peace-Explained-New-Global-Peace-Architecture-or-Another-Power-Play

This is not just about a region in this world where human rights are not given, and people are being killed. It is about humanity, life, and the very foundations of values that humans are living with. When Gaza is discussed today, it is rarely in the language of rights. It is discussed as a problem to be solved, a territory to be stabilized, and a population to be administered.

The announcement of a new international “Board of Peace” fits neatly into this pattern. Presented as a bold initiative to guide Gaza out of conflict and into reconstruction, the Board of Peace has been framed by its sponsors as innovative, inclusive, and forward-looking. Yet for Palestinians, the announcement raises an older, still unresolved question: Who decides Gaza’s future, and on what authority?

What Is the Board of Peace?

The Board of Peace was announced by US President Donald Trump as part of a broader Phase Two Gaza plan, marking a shift from ceasefire management to post-genocide governance and reconstruction.

According to official descriptions, the board is meant to:

  • Oversee Gaza’s political transition
  • Coordinate reconstruction funding and investment
  • Provide international supervision during a “transitional” period

Trump declared himself chair of the board and described it as a high-level body composed of political leaders, financial figures, and diplomatic actors. Unlike the United Nations, the board has no clear treaty basis, no General Assembly mandate, and no defined accountability mechanism.

It is powerful not because it is formal, but because it is backed by money, political leverage, and security control.

Who is on the Board?

The individuals named or referenced in connection with the Board of Peace are not neutral facilitators.

The board’s executive circle includes:

  • Marco Rubio, US Senator and the Secretary of State
  • Tony Blair, former UK prime minister
  • Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and former Middle East envoy
  • Steve Witkoff, US real estate magnate and political donor
  • Ajay Banga, President of the World Bank

These are figures associated with Western political power, financial institutions, and security-centric diplomacy. None are elected Palestinian representatives. None comes from Gaza. The imbalance is structural, not incidental.

Which Countries Were Invited?

One of the board’s defining features is its attempt to project global legitimacy through invited state participation.

According to credible sources, Trump sent invitations to around 60 world leaders. Those explicitly named in reporting include:

  • Turkey (President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan)
  • Egypt (President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi)
  • Canada (Prime Minister Mark Carney)
  • Argentina (President Javier Milei)

Moreover, some diplomatic sources also indicate the list includes:

  • Britain
  • Germany
  • Italy
  • Morocco
  • Indonesia
  • Australia

The Palestinian Face of the Plan: Who Is Ali Shaath?

To provide the plan with Palestinian leadership, the US has backed Ali Shaath as head of the transitional Palestinian committee that will administer Gaza’s civil affairs under the Board of Peace.

Shaath’s profile is central to understanding how this governance model is being sold.

Here is a quick overview of Ali Shaath:

  • He was born in 1958 in Khan Younis
  • He is a civil engineer with a PhD from Queen’s University Belfast
  • He previously served as deputy minister of planning in the Palestinian Authority
  • He has worked on industrial zone projects in both Gaza and the West Bank

Shaath has spoken publicly about the scale of Gaza’s destruction, estimating around 68 million tons of rubble, much of it contaminated with unexploded ordnance. He has suggested that clearing debris could take three years, with full recovery achievable in seven years. It seems to be a far more optimistic timeline than UN estimates, which warn that rebuilding could extend beyond 2040.

Politically, Shaath has been described as acceptable to both Hamas and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, precisely because he is positioned as a technocrat rather than a political leader. However, it is yet to be observed how he would work with the other members.

Governance Without Sovereignty

The Palestinian committee, chaired by Shaath, has issued a mission statement pledging to restore services, rebuild infrastructure, and stabilize daily life in Gaza.

The committee describes its work as “rooted in peace” and focused on technocratic administration rather than politics.

Yet the committee:

  • Controls no borders
  • Commands no security forces
  • Regulates no airspace or coastline
  • Has no electoral mandate

It governs without power, while power remains in external hands.

When it comes to the reaction of the people of Gaza, they showed mixed feelings of skepticism over hope. Some Palestinians express cautious hope that any plan might bring electricity, water, and an end to constant displacement. Others see the Board of Peace as another externally designed structure that manages Gaza without addressing the occupation.

Peace Architecture or Power Management?

The Board of Peace is being presented as an innovation. However, history offers a cautionary lens.

Temporary governance structures in occupied or post-conflict territories have a habit of becoming permanent. Reconstruction becomes conditional. Aid becomes leverage. Administration replaces self-determination.

In a nutshell, the Board of Peace asks the world to believe that stability can precede justice, and that governance can substitute for freedom.

For Palestinians, the unanswered question is simpler and older:

If Gaza’s future is designed in Washington, financed in global capitals, and overseen by external boards—where does Palestinian self-determination actually begin?

Until that question is addressed, the Board of Peace risks becoming not a new architecture for peace, but another structure built on the same imbalance that has kept Gaza unfree for decades.

Peace cannot be outsourced, and a people cannot be rebuilt while being brutally ruled.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending