The conflict in Syria is one that has been a war zone for years and since 2011 has escalated in warfare. These attacks have worked its way towards an attack of hospitals and the medical field. For obvious reason this is bringing great stress to the medical world. The US and Russia have been known actors in this crisis for quite awhile and are now working together in order to put an end to the conflict. This has taken place with the signing of a cease-fire. Following this agreement there has been a noticeable change in the number of attacks and casualties in Syria. Although there has been a decrease in the amount of attacks and casualties it has not been illuminated. Actor have been seen making accusations against each other for violating the cease-fire agreement, however due to a lack of information it is unclear the sources of these attacks. Terrorist organizations have also been seen as a potential source to these attacks, however the question of whether these actors are involved in such attacks arise. These recent episodes are just another event of many that having been occurring for years. Due to the lack of information or credibility it is hard to make any progress in this war.
“Of the People” is an interactive article from the New York Times:
The article is a compilation of photos and interviews taken from campaign events around America. The reporters asked people what made them passionate about politics. While of course it does not represent every situation, I was touched while reading the viewpoints of people of many different ages, ethnicities, economic status, and backgrounds. This country is so diverse, and usually people have reasons for believing the things that they do. America was always meant to be a place where people can be free to believe and stand for what they think is right.
While it is good to allow for so many different opinions and beliefs, it really is impossible to elect a president that will please everyone. Our job is to elect someone who best represents the people, who will make positive changes, and who will defend this type of freedom. Do you feel that any of the current presidential candidates can effectively address such a wide range of issues?
The pentagon has finally decided that the next step to confront and possibly fight back against ISIS and ISIL is to launch their cyberweapons. The U.S. military is using new digital weapons to try to neutralize the Islamic’s State’s ability to communicate, control forces, and manage finances in Syria and Iraq. ISIS and ISIL have completely undertaken technology to plan and coordinate attacks in the Middle East and other areas of the world. Although the U.S. has been hesitant to use cyperweapons in an offensive manner, they have decided that it is time to do so before ISIS grows even more than it has.
Defense secretary Ash Carter is making it very well-known that the military is launching these offensive attacks. He also stated that the military is very capable of doing so. Let’s face it, we all knew that we have the ability and power to fight back with technology, but similar to all wars that have occurred in the past, the United States has taken softer approaches first to give the opposition a chance to change and retract. What happened in Japan? They continued to fight and fight and wouldn’t stop. What did the United States do to finally end it? The atomic bomb. Although this war is different in more ways than we can count, the United States has opened their mind to the idea of an offensive attack instead of playing defense. In sports, defense is necessary, but without a strong offensive charge, no team can ever take home the victory. Now that the NSA and other organizations have determined the methods and procedures to launch this attack, the United States, along with other allies, may have a leg up on the once determined “undefeatable” ISIS.
Here’s a list of all the people, places, and things that Donald Trump has used Twitter to bash. It’s impressively long: 199 things. I found this article to be in turns amusing, outrageous, rude, petty, but on the whole, not surprising. Over and over, Trump described things as “a disaster.” I’ll be the first one to admit that I do not know enough about the Presidential race as I should, but the fact that Trump is so rude just infuriates me. That’s in no way to say that the other candidates are kind and generous, but Trump is known for being a jerk. I’d love to imagine that we’d have a good, upstanding, generous, and honest person as president, but I’m not sure that’s going to happen. But the fact that we could have such a callous person in the White House dismays me.
In your opinion, is it at all important to have a good-hearted person in the White House, or does it not matter as long as they have some capability to run the country?
On a flight to Tel Aviv Renee Rabinowitz, an eighty-one year old lawyer, was asked if she would switch seats after a middle aged Orthodox man came to claim his seat next to her. Gender separation is common among Orthodox-Jews because there is a belief that coming into contact with a woman might create sinful arousal. Though i have a strong belief in the importance of the freedom of religion (and being chaste) i think this instance was taking things a little too far. Ms. Rabinowitz is in her eighties, although she is a very lovely woman i highly doubt this man was running any risk of feeling attracted to her. From the sound of it, the rule in this situation can change greatly depending on ones interpretation of the Torah. So did this man really have a right to request that the older woman sitting next to him move for religious reasons?
The encounter bothered Ms. Rabinowitz enough that she is now suing the airline for discrimination. Though i don’t think she’ll win because she voluntarily moved seats, i do think it’s important that she’s standing up for herself. I also think it would be helpful if the airline had a feature where you could request to sit next to other males while choosing seats on the flight or something like that to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. Because though freedom of religion is important, a woman should not be made to feel that her existence is dirty and sinful because a man doesn’t want to sit by her. If he has a problem with it he should be the one to move.
Recently, with the help of Russia and the U.S., a ceasefire was established within Syria, set to take place on Friday night at midnight. Should the ceasefire succeed, it will cue the first glimpses of peace after a five-year civil war which has had hundreds of thousands of casualties including civilians. The peace would signal one of the most successful diplomatic endeavors, however it comes at a price: if the ceasefire takes hold and succeeds, it would practically guarantee Assad the ability to maintain control of the government, at least for the next couple of years.
The U.S. has not stated anything in regard to this hypothesis, but European and Israeli officials have both estimated that the ceasefire would consolidate power for Assad. Not only that, but it would also freeze the areas that make up an “informal partition” of the country, even if goals are to keep the country whole.
Personally, no matter what, the ceasefire is a stepping stone of extreme importance; with over 250,000 people dead and millions of refugees, the fighting needs to stop. That doesn’t mean Assad keeping power isn’t bad, because Assad was an instigator of human rights abuses. Nevertheless, the fighting needs to stop first, before anything can be done about Assad. Besides the fact that we can at least somewhat work with Russia on the aspect of the ceasefire; we cannot do the same for who should be leading the country. Although Assad may stay in power (if the ceasefire works, as is hoped), I am sure he would be under careful watch to prevent more abuses of human rights.
What are your thoughts? Is Assad in power a bigger problem than it seems? Or, is the ceasefire important on its own, disregarding that aspect? Or, are the European and Israeli officials wrong? Is peace not going to keep Assad in power?
Read the article here.
Conflict continues to grow in the South China Sea as China increasingly asserts control of highly disputed territory. Islands within this region are disputed by a variety of nations including, “China, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. While these islands are uninhabited, they are in close proximity to “one or the world’s busiest waterways.” The waters of the South China Sea are part of one of the greatest trade routes in the world and many economies across the globe rely on them for trade. Due to their locations, these islands are strategically valuable reconnaissance sites and commanding them would allow China to monitor all air and sea traffic within the area. Recent satellite images show that as an act of aggressive assertion, China has deployed resources on these islands and intends to take advantage of their tactical locations. Although China denies reports concerning militarization on these islands, satellite images show the ongoing construction of radar facilities.
China’s deliberate claim and aggressive expansion has sparked tension and drawn U.S. attention to the region. Although a conflict has not erupted yet, the growing involvement by both the United States and China is creating an increasing precarious situation that could eventually lead to huge incident with global ramifications. If peace is not reached within this region and conflict continues to grow, this conflict will be the last straw in a long series of conflicting agendas between the U.S. and China.
The constitution of India states that citizens have the right to free speech as long as it does not “undermine the sovereignty and integrity of India.”
The leftist student movement from Jawaharlal Nehru University has had many protests, but in a protest earlier this month, protesters shouted phrases like, “long live Pakistan” and voiced support to a terrorist who killed nine people at the Indian Parliament. Since the protest, at least three protestors have been arrested.
So the question remains, should freedom of speech be limited if it undermines the sovereignty of a government?
President Obama addressed the media saying he “won’t back down” on choosing a nominee for the Supreme Court, and that he was optimistic that Senate Republicans would rethink holding hearings once he actually presented a candidate. He brought up the point that the Constitution puts the president in power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. “It’s a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead,” President Obama stated.
He also stated that if Republicans ultimately block his nominee, then doing so will harm a “president’s ability to make any judicial appointments and the courts system as a whole”. He said that you will see more and more vacancies in the court systems, and the credibility of the court will diminish.
However, Obama has been known as the “polarizer” President, with past decisions dividing the opinions of many Americans. And he can definitely put forth a nomination as the President, but will it end up polarizing the public more? Will his nomination just be a waste of time? If the nominee is rejected, will the credibility of the court will diminish?
This article is compilation of questions from all over the globe and answers from two NYT reporters that have worked in and around Syria extensively. They stressed that it’s become increasingly difficult to physically enter the country and report there, and they get lots of information from contacts they have inside Syria.
One thing I found interesting that they said is that ISIS didn’t enter the conflict until years after it started and really, there are way more players that are important than just ISIS and a few insurgent groups, the west just focuses on ISIS mo re because they are scared about terrorism. Also interesting is that many of their contacts in Syria are actually contacts of contacts; without being in the country, they’ve developed a wide web of contacts. Although I would never want to have their job, I think it’s amazing what kind of information these journalists can get and how they get it.