Terrorism Archivi - Page 15 of 15 - politic-news.space

More stories

50 Shares149 Views
in World Politics
Did 9/11 Change Everything?
by Philippa Kaur 10 September 2021, 14:58
Twenty years ago, the United States sustained the first substantial attacks on the mainland since the War of 1812. It was a collective shock to all Americans who believed their country to be impregnable. The Cold War had produced the existential dread of a nuclear attack, but that always lurked in the realm of the maybe. On a day-to-day basis, Americans enjoyed the exceptional privilege of national security. No one would dare attack us for fear of massive retaliation. Little did we imagine that someone would attack us in order to precipitate massive retaliation.
Osama bin Laden understood that American power was vulnerable when overextended. He knew that the greatest military power in the history of the world, deranged by a desire for vengeance, could be lured into taking a cakewalk into a quagmire. With the attacks on September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda turned ordinary American airplanes into weapons to attack American targets. In the larger sense, bin Laden used the entire American army to destroy the foundations of American empire.
360° Context: How 9/11 and the War on Terror Shaped the World
READ MORE
The commentary on this 20th anniversary of 9/11 has been predictably shallow: how the attacks changed travel, fiction, the arts in general. Consider this week’s Washington Post magazine section in which 28 contributors reflect on the ways that the attacks changed the world.
“The attack would alter the lives of U.S. troops and their families, and millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq,” the editors write. “It would set the course of political parties and help to decide who would lead our country. In short, 9/11 changed the world in demonstrable, massive and heartbreaking ways. But the ripple effects altered our lives in subtle, often-overlooked ways as well.”
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
The subsequent entries on art, fashion, architecture, policing, journalism and so on attempt to describe these subtler effects. Yet it’s difficult to read this special issue without concluding that 9/11, in fact, didn’t change the world much at all.
The demonization of American Muslims? That began long before the fateful day, cresting after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The paranoid retrenchment in American architecture? US embassies were rebuilt not in response to 9/11, but the embassy bombings in Beirut in 1983-84 and Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
The impact of 9/11 on the arts can be traced through a handful of works like Spike Lee’s “25th Hour” or the TV series “24” or Don DeLillo’s “Falling Man,” but it didn’t produce a new artistic movement like Dada in the wake of World War I or cli-fi in response to the climate crisis. Even the experience of flying hasn’t changed that much beyond beefed-up security measures. At this point, the introduction of personal in-flight entertainment systems has arguably altered the flying experience more profoundly.
And isn’t the assertion that 9/11 changed everything exceptionally America-centric? Americans were deeply affected, as were the places invaded by US troops. But how much has life in Japan or Zimbabwe or Chile truly changed as a result of 9/11? Of course, Americans have always believed that, as the song goes, “we are the world.”
More Than a Mistake
In a more thoughtful Post consideration of 9/11, Carlos Lozado reviews many of the books that have come out in the last 20 years on what went wrong. In his summary, US policy proceeds like a cascade of falling dominos, each one a mistake that follows from the previous and sets into motion the next.
Embed from Getty Images
Successive administrations underestimated al-Qaeda and failed to see signs of preparation for the 9/11 attacks. In the aftermath of the tragedy, the Bush administration mistakenly followed the example of numerous empires in thinking that it could subdue Afghanistan and remake it in the image of the colonial overlord. It then compounded that error by invading Iraq in 2003 with the justification that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al-Qaeda, was building up a nuclear program, or was otherwise part of an alliance of nations determined to take advantage of an America still reeling from the 9/11 attacks. Subsequent administrations made the mistake of doubling down in Afghanistan, expanding the war on terror to other battlefields and failing to end US operations at propitious moments like the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011.
Lozado concludes by pointing out that Donald Trump is in many ways a product of the war on terror that followed 9/11. “Absent the war on terror, it is harder to imagine a presidential candidate decrying a sitting commander in chief as foreign, Muslim, illegitimate—and using that lie as a successful political platform,” he writes. “Absent the war on terror, it is harder to imagine a travel ban against people from Muslim-majority countries. Absent the war on terror, it is harder to imagine American protesters labeled terrorists, or a secretary of defense describing the nation’s urban streets as a ‘battle space’ to be dominated.”
But to understand the rise of Trump, it’s necessary to see 9/11 and its aftermath as more than just the product of a series of errors of perception and judgment. Implicit in Lozado’s review is the notion that America somehow lost its way, that an otherwise robust intelligence community screwed the pooch, that some opportunistic politicians used the attacks to short-circuit democracy, public oversight and even military logic. But this assumes that the war on terror represents a substantial rift in the American fabric. The 9/11 attacks were a surprise. The response wasn’t.
The United States had already launched a war against Iraq in 1991. It had already mistakenly identified Iran, Hamas and jihadist forces like al-Qaeda as enemies linked by their broad religious identity. It had built a worldwide arsenal of bases and kept up extraordinarily high levels of military spending to maintain full-spectrum dominance. Few American politicians questioned the necessity of this hegemony, though liberals tended to prefer that US allies shoulder some of the burden and neoconservatives favored a more aggressive effort to roll back the influence of Russia, China and other regional hegemons.
Embed from Getty Images
The “war on terror” effectively began in 1979 when the United States established its “state sponsors of terrorism” list. The Reagan administration used “counterterrorism” as an organizing principle of US foreign policy throughout the 1980s. In the post-Cold War era, the Clinton administration attempted to demonstrate its hawk credentials by launching counterterrorism strikes in Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
What changed after 9/11 is that neoconservatives could push their regime-change agenda more successfully because the attacks had temporarily suppressed the Vietnam syndrome, a response to the negative consequences of extended overseas military engagements. Every liberal in Congress, except for the indomitable Barbara Lee, supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, as if they’d been born just the day before. That just happens to be one of those side-effects of empire listed in fine print on the label: periodic and profound amnesia.
In this sense, Trump is not a product of the war on terror. His views on US foreign policy have ranged across the spectrum from jingoistic to non-interventionist. His attitude toward protesters was positively Nixonian. And his recourse to conspiracy theories derived from his legendary disregard for truth. Regardless of 9/11, Trump’s ego would have propelled him toward the White House.
The surge of popular support that placed him in the Oval Office, on the other hand, can only be understood in the post-9/11 context. Cyberspace was full of all sorts of nonsense prior to 9/11 (remember the Y2K predictions?). But the attacks gave birth to a new variety of “truthers” who insisted, against all contrary evidence, that nefarious forces had constructed a self-serving reality. The attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon were “inside jobs.” The Newtown shootings had been staged by “crisis actors.” Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
The shock of the United States being so dramatically and improbably attacked by a couple dozen foreigners was so great that some Americans, uncoupled from their bedrock assumptions about their own national security, were now willing to believe anything. Ultimately, they were even willing to believe someone who lied more consistently and more frequently than any other politician in US history.
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
Trump effectively promised to erase 9/11 from the American consciousness and rewind the clock back to the golden moment of unipolar US power. In offering such selective memory loss, Trump was a quintessentially imperial president.
The Real Legacy of 9/11
Even after the British formally began to withdraw from the empire business after World War II, they couldn’t help but continue to act as if the sun didn’t set on their domains. It was the British who masterminded the coup that deposed Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. It was the British at the head of the invasion of Egypt in 1956 to recapture control of the Suez Canal. Between 1949 and 1970, Britain launched 34 military interventions in all.
The UK apparently never received the memo that it was no longer a dominant military power. It’s hard for empires to retire gracefully. Just ask the French.
The final US withdrawal from Afghanistan last month was in many ways a courageous and successful action by the Biden administration, though it’s hard to come to that conclusion by reading the media accounts. President Joe Biden made the difficult political decision to stick to the terms that his predecessor negotiated with the Taliban last year. Despite being caught by surprise by the Taliban’s rapid seizure of power over the summer, the administration was able to evacuate around 120,000 people, a number that virtually no one would have expected prior to the fall of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. Sure, the administration should have been better prepared. Sure, it should have committed to evacuating more Afghans who fear for their lives under the Taliban. But it made the right move to finally end the US presence in Afghanistan.
Biden has made clear that US counterterrorism strikes in Afghanistan will continue, that the war on terror in the region is not over. Yet, US operations in the Middle East now have the feel of those British interventions in the twilight of empire. America is retreating, slowly but surely and sometimes under a protective hail of bullets. The Islamic State group and its various incarnations have become the problem of the Taliban — and the Syrian state, the Iraq state, the Libyan state (such that it is) and so on.
Embed from Getty Images
Meanwhile, the United States turns its attention toward China. But this is no Soviet Union. China is a powerhouse economy with a government that has skillfully used nationalism to bolster domestic support. With trade and investment, Beijing has recreated a Sinocentric tributary system in Asia. America really doesn’t have the capabilities to roll back Chinese influence in its own backyard.
So that, in the end, is what 9/11 has changed. The impact on culture, on the daily lives of those not touched directly by the tragedies, has been minimal. The deeper changes — on perceptions of Muslims, on the war on terror — had been set in motion before the attacks happened.
But America’s place in the world? In 2000, the United States was still riding high in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War. Today, despite the strains of MAGA that can be heard throughout America’s political culture, the United States has become one major power among many. It can’t dictate policy down the barrel of a gun. Economically it must reckon with China. In geopolitics, it has become the unreliable superpower.
Even in our profound narcissism, Americans are slowly realizing, like the Brits so many years ago, that the imperial game is up.
*[This article was originally published by FPIF.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
100 Shares109 Views
in World Politics
Is Operation Enduring Freedom Doomed to Endure Forever?
by Philippa Kaur 8 September 2021, 17:16
Those were heady days in the US stock market. I would wake up by 5 am and watch CNBC before the stock market opened for trading at 6:30 am Pacific time. It was no different on the morning of September 11, 2001. Little did I know that catastrophic things were about to happen that would change the world.
At 8:45 am Eastern time, an American Airlines flight had crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. Within minutes, CNBC stopped discussing stocks and started covering the incident, which, at that moment, no one knew if it was an anomalous accident or an attack of some kind.
360° Context: How 9/11 and the War on Terror Shaped the World
READ MORE
Three minutes after 9 am Eastern, as I watched incredulously at the events unfolding, I saw a United Airlines passenger aircraft fly right into the south tower of the twin towers. In under an hour, the south tower collapsed, resulting in a massive cloud of dust and smoke. By now, there was no doubt that America was under attack.
“We will remember the moment the news came, where we were and what we were doing,” said President George W. Bush in an address to Congress on September 20. Images from that Tuesday morning are still etched in my memory, happening, as it were, just nine days after my second child was born.
In all, 2,996 people of 78 nationalities lost their lives in four coordinated attacks conducted by al-Qaeda using hijacked commercial, civilian airliners as their weapons, making 9/11 the second-biggest attack on American soil — second only to the genocidal assault on Native Americans committed by the nation’s immigrant settlers.
Operation Enduring Freedom: America’s War on Terror
Addressing the nation the following day, Bush called the attacks “more than acts of terror. They were acts of war.” He promised that “the United States of America will use all our resources to conquer this enemy.” The president went on to assure Americans that this “battle will take time and resolve, but make no mistake about it, we will win.”
Embed from Getty Images
Twenty years later, the US has left Afghanistan and Iraq in a chaotic mess. The question remains: Did the United States win the war on terror the Bush administration launched in 2001? This was a war that has cost more than $6.4 trillion and over 801,000 lives, according to Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
In October 2001, the US-led coalition invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban government that had harbored al-Qaeda. Soon after, al-Qaeda militants had been driven into hiding. Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack and leader of al-Qaeda, was killed 10 years later in a raid conducted by US forces in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
In a shrewd move, Bush had left himself room to take down Iraq and its president, Saddam Hussein, using an overarching definition for the war on terror. In his address to Congress on September 20, Bush also stated: “Our war on terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”
True to his words, in 2003, the United States and its allies invaded Iraq under the premise that it possessed weapons of mass destruction. Bush settled his score with Hussein, ensuring he was captured, shamed and subsequently executed in 2006.
Despite reducing al-Qaeda to nothing and killing bin Laden, despite wrecking Iraq and having its leader executed, it is impossible to say that the US has won the war on terror. All that Washington has managed to do is to trade the Islamic State (IS) group that swept through Syria and Iraq in 2014 for al-Qaeda, giving a new identity to an old enemy. Following the US and NATO pullout from Afghanistan last month, the Taliban, whom America drove out of power in 2001, are back in the saddle. In fact, the Taliban’s recapture of Afghanistan has been so swift, so precise and so comprehensive that the international community is in a shock, questioning the timing and prudence of the withdrawal of troops.
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
Setting an expectation for how long the war or terror was likely to last, the secretary of defense under the Bush administration, Donald Rumsfeld, remarked in September 2001 that “it is not going to be over in five minutes or five months, it’ll take years.” Rumsfeld, who christened the campaign Operation Enduring Freedom, was prescient, as the war enters its third decade in a never-ending fight against terrorism.
The Winners and Losers
Ironically, Operation Enduring Freedom has only resulted in an enduring loss of American freedom, one step at a time. I still remember that I had walked up to the jet bridge and received my wife as she deplaned from a flight in 1991. Another time, when she was traveling to Boston from San Francisco, I was allowed to enter the aircraft and help her get settled with her luggage, along with our 1-year-old. It is inconceivable to be allowed to do such a thing today, and I would not be surprised if readers question the veracity of my personal experience. In many ways, al-Qaeda has succeeded in stripping Americans of the sense of freedom they have always enjoyed.
More than Americans, the biggest losers in this tragic war are Iraqis and Afghans, particularly the women. Afghan women, who had a brief respite from persecution under the Taliban’s strict Islamic laws and human rights abuses, are back to square one and justifiably terrified of their future under the new regime. The heart-wrenching scenes from Kabul airport of people trying to flee the country tell us about how Afghans view the quality of life under the Taliban and the uncertainty that the future holds.
To its east, the delicate balance of peace — if one could characterize the situation between India and Pakistan as peaceful — is likely to be put to the test as violence from Afghanistan spreads. To its north in Tajikistan, there isn’t much love lost between Tajiks and the Taliban. Tajikistan’s president, Emomali Rahmon, has refused to recognize the Taliban government, and Tajiks have promised to join anti-Taliban militia groups, paving the way for continued unrest and violence in Central Asia.
If History Could be Rewritten
In 2001, referring to Islamist terrorists, Bush asked the rhetorical question, “Why do they hate us?” He tried to answer it in a speech to Congress: “They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”
Islamic fundamentalists couldn’t give two hoots about a form of government or a people’s way of life thousands of miles away. The real answer to Bush’s question lies deeply buried in US foreign policy. America’s steadfast support of Israel and its refusal to recognize the state of Palestine is the number one reason for it to become the target of groups like al-Qaeda and IS.
Embed from Getty Images
America’s ill-conceived response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 during the Cold War led to the creation of al-Qaeda. It was with US funds and support that the anti-Soviet mujahideen fought America’s proxy war with the Soviets. Without US interference, al-Qaeda may never have come into existence.
During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, the US bolstered Saddam Hussein by backing his regime against the Iranians. When Hussein became too ambitious for America’s comfort and invaded Kuwait in 1990, George H.W. Bush engaged Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. The US motive at that time was primarily to protect its oil interests in Kuwait.
The US created its own nemesis in Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and spent $6 trillion to kill them. In the process, US leaders have reduced Iraq and Afghanistan to shambles and created a new monster in the Islamic State.
Sadly, history can never be rewritten. The US has proved time and again that its involvement in the Middle East and Muslim world is aimed at advancing its own political interests. The only question that remains is: Can the US adopt a policy that would not aggravate the situation and, over time, deescalate it, without creating yet another Hussein or bin Laden? Without a radically different approach, Operation Enduring Freedom is doomed to endure forever, costing trillions of dollars each decade.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
138 Shares169 Views
in Elections
Two Men Charged With Plotting to Blow Up California Democratic Headquarters
by Aurelia Butler 16 July 2021, 21:00
The men consulted with an antigovernment paramilitary organization and hoped to start a “movement” that could keep former President Donald J. Trump in office.Angered by the results of the 2020 presidential election, two men in Northern California plotted for months to blow up the state Democratic Party headquarters in Sacramento, according to federal authorities.The men, who face conspiracy and weapons charges, consulted with an antigovernment paramilitary organization, hoping to start a “movement” that could keep former President Donald J. Trump in office. Using encrypted messaging apps, they discussed various targets, including the Governor’s Mansion as well as Twitter and Facebook offices, court documents said.“I want to blow up a democrat building bad,” documents quoted one defendant, Ian Benjamin Rogers, 45, as texting to the other man, Jarrod Copeland, 37.The suspected plot is the latest in a range of antigovernment activity linked to the 2020 election and its aftermath, some of it involving paramilitary groups.Mr. Rogers was arrested on Jan. 15 on state weapons charges after a search of his home and business turned up some 50 firearms, thousands of rounds of ammunition and five pipe bombs, court papers said. He has been held in jail in Napa County since his arrest.Black powder, pipes and other bomb-making material as well as various military manuals like the “U.S. Army Improvised Munitions Handbook” were also found, prosecutors said. Mr. Copeland was arrested on Thursday, when he and Mr. Rogers were indicted in federal court in San Francisco on charges of conspiring to attack the Democratic headquarters. Mr. Rogers also faces federal weapons charges.Mr. Copeland is accused of obstruction of justice charges and is suspected of erasing his communications about the plot after he learned that Mr. Rogers had been arrested. The charges of conspiracy to commit arson carry potential jail sentences of up to 20 years.Colin L. Cooper, a lawyer for Mr. Rogers, denied the charges. “He had nothing to do whatsoever with planning to storm the Democratic headquarters up in Sacramento,” Mr. Cooper said.John A. Ambrosio, Mr. Copeland’s lawyer, said he had entered a plea of not guilty and declined further comment. Mr. Copeland said in the documents that he thought Mr. Rogers just wanted to “blow off steam,” and that he did not take the threats seriously.In late November, according to the indictment, the two men began using text messages to discuss possible Democratic targets, including George Soros, a high-profile donor, before settling on the John L. Burton Democratic Headquarters in Sacramento.A month later, Mr. Copeland messaged to say he had contacted an antigovernment paramilitary group with the aim of gathering support for their “movement.” The two groups he mentioned in seeking help were the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters.Court papers said both Mr. Copeland and Mr. Rogers had been previously affiliated with the Three Percenters, whose name is based on the false premise that just 3 percent of American colonists fought the British in the Revolutionary War.A photograph of a Three Percenters sticker on a vehicle said to belong to Mr. Rogers was included in the documents.In text messages, Mr. Rogers said the two men should begin their attacks after the presidential inauguration on Jan. 20.In one of the texts obtained by the federal agents, Mr. Rogers wrote, “The democrats need to pay.” In reference to Mr. Trump, he added, “I hope 45 goes to war if he doesn’t I will.”Mr. Rogers ran an auto repair company in the city of Napa that specialized in servicing high-end British vehicles. When asked in a 2014 interview with a local news organization which person he admired most, his first response was Mr. Trump.Mr. Copeland, from Vallejo, joined the military in December 2013 but was arrested on desertion charges in both 2014 and 2016, when he received a dishonorable discharge, the court papers said. He is the manager at a tool company.The two men discussed the probability that they would be labeled terrorists but waved off the issue. “We will get tagged as domestic terrorists,” Mr. Copeland wrote at one point. Mr. Rogers responded, according to the court documents, “Like I care what we are labeled,” adding, “I just hope our actions will make others to get involved.”Kitty Bennett More
138 Shares169 Views
in Elections
U.S. Will Examine Giving F.B.I. More Resources to Counter Domestic Extremism
by Aurelia Butler 5 February 2021, 22:22
AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyU.S. Will Examine Giving F.B.I. More Resources to Counter Domestic ExtremismThe issue of violent extremist groups in the United States has come to the top of the agenda since a mob of far-right groups stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.The F.B.I. headquarters in Washington.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesJulian E. Barnes and Feb. 5, 2021, 6:22 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The Biden administration will examine if additional F.B.I. agents are needed at the bureau’s field offices to address the threat of domestic violent extremism, a senior administration official said on Friday.Last month, the White House ordered a review of the threat of domestic violent extremism, led by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That assessment will inform a policy review that will consider F.B.I. resources, additional authorities, foreign influence operations and other questions.The senior administration official said that the assessment and initial policy review would take about 100 days. The official spoke on a conference call with reporters on ground rules of anonymity to broach current policy discussions.The issue of violent extremist groups in the United States has come to the top of the agenda since a mob of far-right extremist organizations stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. The assault, which aimed to stop the counting of Electoral College votes and halt the transition of power to the Biden administration, has led to a string of federal charges against the rioters.Since the attack, there have been a series of questions about the intelligence gathered before Jan. 6, and whether the federal government was taking the threat of violence and extremist groups seriously enough.There is broad interest across the government in the issue of violent domestic groups. On Thursday, both Democrats and Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee expressed support for new domestic terrorism laws intended to stop violence similar to the attack on the Capitol. And Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virgina, who is the new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said this week that he had bipartisan support for his panel to investigate the matter.In a letter last month to President Biden, Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a member of the intelligence committee, backed the administration’s assessment request and asked that the role of foreign adversaries be examined.“It is crucial we understand the full extent of the threat facing our nation to ensure the tragic events of Jan. 6, 2021, never happen again,” Mr. Cornyn wrote.The administration official said the bulk of the intelligence review would fall to the intelligence arms of the F.B.I. and Department of Homeland Security, but it is the role of the director of national intelligence to coordinate assessments that involve multiple departments.However, an element of the review will look at potential links between domestic groups and foreign networks and organizations, the official added. That part of the review will involve intelligence agencies, including the C.I.A. and National Security Agency, which are restricted in their collection of intelligence on Americans.White House officials expect that as part of the policy review, the F.B.I. will seek additional resources to deal with domestic violent extremism. The official noted that a Department of Homeland Security examination found that white supremacist terrorism was the most lethal domestic threat from 2018 to 2020.While some F.B.I. field offices have a squad of agents who deal primarily with the threat of domestic extremist groups, not all of them have a full contingent of resources dedicated to the fight. However, former F.B.I. officials say the domestic terrorism threat can vary from state to state.But the official said another part of the review would look at whether the bureau’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces were structured to address the threat of American extremist groups and antigovernmental organizations. The review will look at whether the task forces are capable of reporting episodes of domestic violent extremism and track the groups that are involved, the official said.International terrorist groups, like Al Qaeda, are far more hierarchical. In contrast, the official said, domestic extremist groups are more loosely organized. Membership can shift, and different groups can come together, as they did during the Capitol attack, and then split apart.Adam Goldman More
150 Shares169 Views
in Elections
Biden to Tap More Former Obama Officials for Top National Security Jobs
by Aurelia Butler 6 January 2021, 00:26
@media (pointer: coarse) {
.nytslm_outerContainer {
overflow-x: scroll;
-webkit-overflow-scrolling: touch;
}
}
.nytslm_outerContainer {
display: flex;
align-items: center;
/* Fixes IE */
overflow-x: auto;
box-shadow: -6px 0 white, 6px 0 white, 1px 3px 6px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.15);
padding: 10px 1.25em 10px;
transition: all 250ms;
-ms-overflow-style: none;
/* IE 10+ */
scrollbar-width: none;
/* Firefox */
background: white;
margin-bottom: 20px;
z-index: 1000;
}
@media (min-width: 1024px) {
.nytslm_outerContainer {
margin-bottom: 0px;
padding: 13px 1.25em 10px;
}
}
.nytslm::-webkit-scrollbar {
display: none;
/* Safari and Chrome */
}
.nytslm_innerContainer {
margin: unset;
display: flex;
align-items: center;
}
@media (min-width: 600px) {
.nytslm_innerContainer {
margin: auto;
min-width: 600px;
}
}
.nytslm_title {
padding-right: 1em;
border-right: 1px solid #ccc;
}
@media (min-width: 740px) {
.nytslm_title {
max-width: none;
font-size: 1.0625rem;
line-height: 1.25rem;
}
}
.nytslm_spacer {
width: 0;
border-right: 1px solid #E2E2E2;
height: 45px;
margin: 0 1.4em;
}
.nytslm_list {
font-family: nyt-franklin, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
display: flex;
width: auto;
list-style: none;
padding-left: 1em;
flex-shrink: 0;
align-items: baseline;
justify-content: center;
}
.nytslm_li {
margin-right: 1.4em;
flex-shrink: 0;
font-size: 0.8125rem;
line-height: 0.8125rem;
font-weight: 600;
padding: 1em 0;
}
#nytslm .nytslm_li a {
color: #121212;
text-decoration: none;
}
#nytslm .nytsmenu_li_current,
#nytslm .nytslm_li a:hover,
#nytslm .nytslm_li a:active,
#nytslm .nytslm_li a:focus {
color: #121212;
border-bottom: 2px solid #121212;
padding-bottom: 2px;
}
.nytslm_li_live_loud:after {
content: ‘LIVE’
}
.nytslm_li_live_loud {
background-color: #d0021b;
color: white;
border-radius: 3px;
padding: 4px 6px 2px 6px;
margin-right: 2px;
display: inline-block;
letter-spacing: 0.03rem;
font-weight: 700;
}
.nytslm_li_upcoming_loud {
border: 1px solid #d0021b;
color: #d0021b;
border-radius: 3px;
padding: 4px 6px 2px 6px;
margin-right: 2px;
display: inline-block;
letter-spacing: 0.03rem;
font-weight: 700;
}
.nytslm_li_upcoming_loud:before {
content: ‘Upcoming’
}
.nytslm_li_loud a:hover,
.nytslm_li_loud a:active,
.nytslm_li_loud a:focus {
border-bottom: 2px solid;
padding-bottom: 2px;
}
.nytslm_li_updated {
color: #777;
}
#masthead-bar-one {
display: none;
}
.electionNavbar__logoSvg {
width: 80px;
align-self: center;
display: flex;
}
@media(min-width: 600px) {
.electionNavbar__logoSvg {
width: 100px;
}
}
.nytslm_notification {
border-left: 1px solid #ccc;
font-family: nyt-franklin, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
padding-left: 1em;
}
.nytslm_notification_label {
color: #D0021B;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
font-size: 0.6875rem;
margin-bottom: 0.2em;
letter-spacing: 0.02em;
}
.nytslm_notification_link {
font-weight: 600;
color: #121212;
display: flex;
align-items: center;
}
.nytslm_notification_headline {
font-size: 0.875rem;
line-height: 1.0625rem;
}
.nytslm_notification_image_wrapper {
position: relative;
max-width: 75px;
margin-left: 10px;
flex-shrink: 0;
}
.nytslm_notification_image {
max-width: 100%;
}
.nytslm_notification_image_live_bug {
position: absolute;
text-transform: uppercase;
bottom: 7px;
left: 2px;
font-size: 0.5rem;
background-color: #d0021b;
color: white;
border-radius: 3px;
padding: 4px 4px 2px 4px;
font-weight: 700;
margin-right: 2px;
letter-spacing: 0.03rem;
}
/* No hover state on in app */
.Hybrid .nytslm_li a:hover,
.Hybrid .nytslm_li_loud a:hover {
border-bottom: none;
padding-bottom: 0;
}
.Hybrid #TOP_BANNER_REGION {
display: none;
}
.nytslm_st0 {
fill: #f4564a;
}
.nytslm_st1 {
fill: #ffffff;
}
.nytslm_st2 {
fill: #2b8ad8;
}
Georgia Runoff Results
Latest Updates
Live Forecast
The Candidates in Georgia
Electoral College Votes
“),e+=””+b+””,e+=””,d&&(e+=””,e+=””,e+=”Live”,e+=””),e+=””,e}function getVariant(){var a=window.NYTD&&window.NYTD.Abra&&window.NYTD.Abra.getAbraSync&&window.NYTD.Abra.getAbraSync(“STYLN_elections_notifications”);// Only actually have control situation in prd and stg
return[“www.nytimes.com”,”www.stg.nytimes.com”].includes(window.location.hostname)||(a=”STYLN_elections_notifications”),a||”0_control”}function reportData(){if(window.dataLayer){var a;try{a=dataLayer.find(function(a){return!!a.user}).user}catch(a){}var b={abtest:{test:”styln-elections-notifications”,variant:getVariant()},module:{name:”styln-elections-notifications”,label:getVariant(),region:”TOP_BANNER”},user:a};window.dataLayer.push(Object.assign({},b,{event:”ab-alloc”})),window.dataLayer.push(Object.assign({},b,{event:”ab-expose”})),window.dataLayer.push(Object.assign({},b,{event:”impression”}))}}function insertNotification(a,b){// Bail here if the user is in control
if(reportData(),”0_control”!==getVariant()){// Remove menu bar items or previous notification
var c=document.querySelector(“.nytslm_innerContainer”);if(c&&1 30 * 60 * 1000) return restoreMenuIfNecessary();
// Do not update DOM if the content won’t change
if(currentNotificationContents!==a.text&&window.localStorage.getItem(“stylnelecs”)!==a.timestamp)// Do not show if user has interacted with this link
// if (Cookie.get(‘stylnelecs’) === data.timestamp) return;
{expireLocalStorage(“stylnelecs”),currentNotificationContents=a.text;// Construct URL for tracking
var b=a.link.split(“#”),c=b[0]+”?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-elections-notifications&variant=1_election_notifications&region=TOP_BANNER&context=Menu#”+b[1],d=formatNotification(c,a.text,a.kicker,a.image);insertNotification(d,function(){var b=document.querySelector(“.nytslm_notification_link”);return b?void(b.onclick=function(){window.localStorage.setItem(“stylnelecs”,a.timestamp)}):null})}})}(function(){navigator.userAgent.includes(“nytios”)||navigator.userAgent.includes(“nyt_android”)||window.stylnelecsHasLoaded||(// setInterval(getUpdate, 5000);
window.stylnelecsHasLoaded=!0)})(),function(){try{if(navigator.userAgent.includes(“nytios”)||navigator.userAgent.includes(“nyt_android”)){var a=document.getElementsByClassName(“nytslm_title”)[0];a.style.pointerEvents=”none”}}catch(a){}}(); More
150 Shares169 Views
in Elections
Trump Incentives for Signing Peace Accords With Israel Could Be at Risk
by Aurelia Butler 20 December 2020, 22:52
@media (pointer: coarse) {
.nytslm_outerContainer {
overflow-x: scroll;
-webkit-overflow-scrolling: touch;
}
}
.nytslm_outerContainer {
display: flex;
align-items: center;
/* Fixes IE */
overflow-x: auto;
box-shadow: -6px 0 white, 6px 0 white, 1px 3px 6px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.15);
padding: 10px 1.25em 10px;
transition: all 250ms;
-ms-overflow-style: none;
/* IE 10+ */
scrollbar-width: none;
/* Firefox */
background: white;
margin-bottom: 20px;
z-index: 1000;
}
@media (min-width: 1024px) {
.nytslm_outerContainer {
margin-bottom: 0px;
padding: 13px 1.25em 10px;
}
}
.nytslm::-webkit-scrollbar {
display: none;
/* Safari and Chrome */
}
.nytslm_innerContainer {
margin: unset;
display: flex;
align-items: center;
}
@media (min-width: 600px) {
.nytslm_innerContainer {
margin: auto;
min-width: 600px;
}
}
.nytslm_title {
padding-right: 1em;
border-right: 1px solid #ccc;
}
@media (min-width: 740px) {
.nytslm_title {
max-width: none;
font-size: 1.0625rem;
line-height: 1.25rem;
}
}
.nytslm_spacer {
width: 0;
border-right: 1px solid #E2E2E2;
height: 45px;
margin: 0 1.4em;
}
.nytslm_list {
font-family: nyt-franklin, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
display: flex;
width: auto;
list-style: none;
padding-left: 1em;
flex-shrink: 0;
align-items: baseline;
justify-content: center;
}
.nytslm_li {
margin-right: 1.4em;
flex-shrink: 0;
font-size: 0.8125rem;
line-height: 0.8125rem;
font-weight: 600;
padding: 1em 0;
}
#nytslm .nytslm_li a {
color: #121212;
text-decoration: none;
}
#nytslm .nytsmenu_li_current,
#nytslm .nytslm_li a:hover,
#nytslm .nytslm_li a:active,
#nytslm .nytslm_li a:focus {
color: #121212;
border-bottom: 2px solid #121212;
padding-bottom: 2px;
}
.nytslm_li_live_loud:after {
content: ‘LIVE’
}
.nytslm_li_live_loud {
background-color: #d0021b;
color: white;
border-radius: 3px;
padding: 4px 6px 2px 6px;
margin-right: 2px;
display: inline-block;
letter-spacing: 0.03rem;
font-weight: 700;
}
.nytslm_li_upcoming_loud {
border: 1px solid #d0021b;
color: #d0021b;
border-radius: 3px;
padding: 4px 6px 2px 6px;
margin-right: 2px;
display: inline-block;
letter-spacing: 0.03rem;
font-weight: 700;
}
.nytslm_li_upcoming_loud:before {
content: ‘Upcoming’
}
.nytslm_li_loud a:hover,
.nytslm_li_loud a:active,
.nytslm_li_loud a:focus {
border-bottom: 2px solid;
padding-bottom: 2px;
}
.nytslm_li_updated {
color: #777;
}
#masthead-bar-one {
display: none;
}
.electionNavbar__logoSvg {
width: 80px;
align-self: center;
display: flex;
}
@media(min-width: 600px) {
.electionNavbar__logoSvg {
width: 100px;
}
}
.nytslm_notification {
border-left: 1px solid #ccc;
font-family: nyt-franklin, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
padding-left: 1em;
}
.nytslm_notification_label {
color: #D0021B;
text-transform: uppercase;
font-weight: 700;
font-size: 0.6875rem;
margin-bottom: 0.2em;
letter-spacing: 0.02em;
}
.nytslm_notification_link {
font-weight: 600;
color: #121212;
display: flex;
align-items: center;
}
.nytslm_notification_headline {
font-size: 0.875rem;
line-height: 1.0625rem;
}
.nytslm_notification_image_wrapper {
position: relative;
max-width: 75px;
margin-left: 10px;
flex-shrink: 0;
}
.nytslm_notification_image {
max-width: 100%;
}
.nytslm_notification_image_live_bug {
position: absolute;
text-transform: uppercase;
bottom: 7px;
left: 2px;
font-size: 0.5rem;
background-color: #d0021b;
color: white;
border-radius: 3px;
padding: 4px 4px 2px 4px;
font-weight: 700;
margin-right: 2px;
letter-spacing: 0.03rem;
}
/* No hover state on in app */
.Hybrid .nytslm_li a:hover,
.Hybrid .nytslm_li_loud a:hover {
border-bottom: none;
padding-bottom: 0;
}
.Hybrid #TOP_BANNER_REGION {
display: none;
}
.nytslm_st0 {
fill: #f4564a;
}
.nytslm_st1 {
fill: #ffffff;
}
.nytslm_st2 {
fill: #2b8ad8;
}
Electoral College Results
Election Disinformation
Full Results
Biden Transition Updates
“),e+=””+b+””,e+=””,d&&(e+=””,e+=””,e+=”Live”,e+=””),e+=””,e}function getVariant(){var a=window.NYTD&&window.NYTD.Abra&&window.NYTD.Abra.getAbraSync&&window.NYTD.Abra.getAbraSync(“STYLN_elections_notifications”);// Only actually have control situation in prd and stg
return[“www.nytimes.com”,”www.stg.nytimes.com”].includes(window.location.hostname)||(a=”STYLN_elections_notifications”),a||”0_control”}function reportData(){if(window.dataLayer){var a;try{a=dataLayer.find(function(a){return!!a.user}).user}catch(a){}var b={abtest:{test:”styln-elections-notifications”,variant:getVariant()},module:{name:”styln-elections-notifications”,label:getVariant(),region:”TOP_BANNER”},user:a};window.dataLayer.push(Object.assign({},b,{event:”ab-alloc”})),window.dataLayer.push(Object.assign({},b,{event:”ab-expose”})),window.dataLayer.push(Object.assign({},b,{event:”impression”}))}}function insertNotification(a,b){// Bail here if the user is in control
if(reportData(),”0_control”!==getVariant()){// Remove menu bar items or previous notification
var c=document.querySelector(“.nytslm_innerContainer”);if(c&&1 30 * 60 * 1000) return restoreMenuIfNecessary();
// Do not update DOM if the content won’t change
if(currentNotificationContents!==a.text&&window.localStorage.getItem(“stylnelecs”)!==a.timestamp)// Do not show if user has interacted with this link
// if (Cookie.get(‘stylnelecs’) === data.timestamp) return;
{expireLocalStorage(“stylnelecs”),currentNotificationContents=a.text;// Construct URL for tracking
var b=a.link.split(“#”),c=b[0]+”?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-elections-notifications&variant=1_election_notifications&region=TOP_BANNER&context=Menu#”+b[1],d=formatNotification(c,a.text,a.kicker,a.image);insertNotification(d,function(){var b=document.querySelector(“.nytslm_notification_link”);return b?void(b.onclick=function(){window.localStorage.setItem(“stylnelecs”,a.timestamp)}):null})}})}(function(){navigator.userAgent.includes(“nytios”)||navigator.userAgent.includes(“nyt_android”)||window.stylnelecsHasLoaded||(// setInterval(getUpdate, 5000);
window.stylnelecsHasLoaded=!0)})(),function(){try{if(navigator.userAgent.includes(“nytios”)||navigator.userAgent.includes(“nyt_android”)){var a=document.getElementsByClassName(“nytslm_title”)[0];a.style.pointerEvents=”none”}}catch(a){}}(); More
38 Shares149 Views
in Elections
Your Thursday Briefing
by Aurelia Butler 17 December 2020, 05:08
#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesThe Latest Vaccine InformationU.S. Deaths Surpass 300,000F.A.Q.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyYour Thursday BriefingCronyism and waste in Britain’s pandemic spending.Dec. 17, 2020Updated 1:08 a.m. ET(Want to get this briefing by email? Here’s the sign-up.)Good morning.We’re covering a new analysis of Britain’s slipshod pandemic spending, a move to the right for Emmanuel Macron and an upside to the climate crisis for Russia.[embedded content]Medical staff wearing personal protective equipment, or P.P.E., at a hospital in Cambridge, England, in May. Officials shelled out billions in contracts for Covid-19 tests, vaccines and P.P.E.Credit…Pool photo by Neil HallCronyism and waste in Britain’s pandemic spendingAs Britain scrambled for protective gear and other equipment, select companies — many of which had close connections to the governing Conservative Party or no previous experience — reaped billions, according to a New York Times analysis of more than 2,500 contracts.In some cases, more qualified companies lost out to those with better political connections, which were granted access to a secretive V.I.P. lane that made them about 10 times more likely to be approved for a contract.Conclusions: While there is no evidence of illegal conduct, there is ample evidence of cronyism, waste and poor due diligence, with officials ignoring or missing red flags, including histories of fraud, human rights abuses, tax evasion and other serious controversies.Christmas restrictions: Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stuck by a pledge to lift limits on gatherings from Dec. 23 to 27 despite growing calls to abandon the plan as coronavirus cases surge.Here are the latest updates and maps of the pandemic.In other developments:The U.S. is negotiating a deal with Pfizer to produce tens of millions of additional doses of its coronavirus vaccine. Vaccinations began in the U.S. on Monday.The number of severe Covid-19 cases in the Gaza Strip sharply increased, raising concerns that hospitals could soon be overwhelmed.In the first week of Britain’s vaccination program, more than 137,000 people have received shots.An international team of 10 scientists working with the World Health Organization will travel next year to China to investigate the origins of the coronavirus.President Emmanuel Macron of France has moved to the right, alienating some former supporters and current members of his own party.Credit…Thomas Coex/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMacron’s pre-election slide to the rightWith an eye on France’s next presidential election in 2022, President Emmanuel Macron has tacked to the right, alienating former liberal supporters and current members of his own party.After recent terrorist attacks, Mr. Macron pushed forward bills on security and Islamist extremism that raised alarms among some French, the United Nations and human rights groups, but won favor among right-leaning voters. Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Rally, is expected to be his main challenger.Analysis: Despite his center-left origins, Mr. Macron has always been known as a shape-shifter. His slide to the right is regarded by some as a clean break from the first three years of his presidency.Related: A French court found 14 people guilty of aiding the 2015 attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo, supplying the attackers with cash, weapons and vehicles.Gender equality: The mayor of Paris was fined nearly $110,000 for hiring too many women, under a 2012 law intended to address gender imbalance at senior levels of the country’s Civil Service.A landmark ruling on air pollutionA 9-year-old girl who died of an asthma attack in 2013 became the first person in Britain to officially have air pollution listed as a cause of death, after she was exposed to levels of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter beyond World Health Organization guidelines.The death of the girl, Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who was Black, shed a harsh light on how pollution disproportionately affects minorities and deprived families in Britain.Legal experts said it could open a new door to lawsuits by pollution victims or their families. The girl lived near a major road in southeast London. Her mother said that if she had been told air pollution was contributing to her daughter’s ill health, she would have moved.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

Terrorism

More stories

Did 9/11 Change Everything?

Is Operation Enduring Freedom Doomed to Endure Forever?

Two Men Charged With Plotting to Blow Up California Democratic Headquarters

U.S. Will Examine Giving F.B.I. More Resources to Counter Domestic Extremism

Biden to Tap More Former Obama Officials for Top National Security Jobs

Trump Incentives for Signing Peace Accords With Israel Could Be at Risk

Your Thursday Briefing

ITALIAN LANGUAGE

ENGLISH LANGUAGE