Feed aggregator

In this interview, Defence IQ talks to INSYEN, a provider of custom mission system equipment simulators, about the future of military flight training and the

Can South Africa still blame its poor schools on apartheid?

Why Kenyans are tweeting the US attorney general

Nem mezőgazdasági tevékenységek elindításához nyújt majd 100% vissza nem térítendő támogatást, maximum 12 M Ft értékben az a felhívás, melyet a kormány februárban tervez közzétenni. A vidéki térségekben helyi szükségleteket kiszolgáló árutermelő/szolgáltató mikrovállalkozások indítását fogják támogatni 5 évre szóló ún. átalánytámogatással.

“We are not oppressing people and people can speak loudly, can criticise the government, can criticise Hamas. We never put anyone in jail who criticizes Hamas or write something against Hamas. We have different organisations, political parties, even writers, they have full freedom to write what they want.”
Hamas deputy foreign minister, Ghazi Hamed, January 2014
And of course, if Hamas says it -- it must be so. After all, how often do we read or hear in them media about any human rights abuses by the Hamas terrorist group. If the media is inclined to not report on Hamas rocket attacks until after Israel retaliates, what is it supposed to take before the media will report on Hamas humanitarian rights abuses?

That is what makes it so unusual to read in The Times about Three nights of torture: the price for criticising Hamas:
Two Palestinian journalists who were vocal critics of Hamas have told how they were arrested and tortured by the group in an apparently successful attempt to silence them.

“I was blindfolded and forced to sit down on a tiny chair for three nights in a row. It was extremely cold and I was denied sleep,” Ramzi Herzallah, 27, told The Times. He and another Gaza-based journalist, Ayman al-Aloul, were held for more than a week this month.

Mr al-Aloul, who is editor-in-chief of the Arab Now Agency, said that he was beaten, blindfolded and forced to sit all day long during his captivity. He joked that he would now focus on sports, food, literature and fashion reporting. “I’ve decided not to talk about the general situation any more,” he said, adding that Hamas had accused him of harming “the resistance” against Israel.Ayman al-Aloul was held for more than a week MAHMUD HAMS/ Getty Images
The article goes on to note a correlation between Hamas's crackdown on the media and signs of broader public protest. Both journalists had criticized Hamas on domestic issues such as tax increases and blackouts as well publishing pictures of Gazans looking for food in garbage dumps. Herzallah reported that he "was told to shut up because the Hamas government has enough to worry about.”

The domestic problems of Hamas are the result not only of its own misgovernance,but also as a result of its deliberate terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, without regard for the safety of its own Gazan civilians.

While the media has not held Hamas responsible for precipitating war with Israel, at least we have an instance here of the media holding Hamas responsible for intimidating and torturing journalists.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Human Rights Abuses and Gaza and Hamas and Freedom of the Press.

Január 28-án tették közzé 41,410 milliárd forintos keretösszeggel a TOP-1.2.1-15 kódszámú felhívást mely önkormányzatoknak, egyházaknak illetve civil szervezetnek nyújt vissza nem térítendő támogatást, 300 millió forintot meghaladó beruházás esetén 100%-os támogatottsággal. A pályázatokat február 25-től lehet benyújtani.

Pályázati tanácsadó irodáinkba 25 év alatti, felsőfokú végzettségű pályázati asszisztenseket keresünk budapesti és zalacsányi megyei munkavégzési helyszínekre.

Pályázati tapasztalat és gyakorlat nem feltétel, azonnali belépési lehetőséget, intenzív képzést és 8 órás, teljes munkaidős munkaviszonyt ajánlunk.

The 2007 European Union (EU) Strategy for Central Asia was reviewed for the fourth time in 2015. Over the last eight years, the EU has successfully established several institutionalised mechanisms for strengthening relations and working with Central Asian governments, including an increased presence on the ground. Despite this, the EU’s engagement in Central Asia is one of limited to no impact. The region has become more unstable; forecast gas deliveries from the region to Europe have so far not materialised; trade is minimal with the exception of EU-Kazakhstan links, democracy is seen by the Central Asian regimes as a threat to their survival; corruption severely undermines economic development and siphons off much of the development aid; and the human rights situation has been backsliding. The EU should not and cannot compete with Russia and China in the region. The EU would do best to focus on a few key areas where it can achieve concrete results. Besides broader economic and some security cooperation, the EU should focus on education in supporting the region’s development while further emphasizing human rights and strengthening political and financial support to civil society.
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Central Asia, located at the centre of the Eurasian continent and straddling the borders of some of the world’s most pressing hot spots, offers economic opportunities and natural resources but also remains insecure and troublesome. For the European Union, the region is not a priority. It is too distant and Brussels experiences difficulties in executing its democratic and value-based agenda on the ground. Regional dynamics have been significantly influenced by many players present in the region; Russia, China and the United States are the most significant. Russia’s position relies on a holistic approach, including military might and the more recent Eurasian narrative. China, pursuing its Silk Road ideas, has no equal in trade and energy. The US has partially retreated from Central Asia and is reviewing its security-centered strategy. Under these circumstances, what should the EU regional approach look like? What are the shared interests and divergent objectives of the actors present in Central Asia? With what actors could the EU cooperate and with whom should it abstain from regional rapprochement? Finally, what options does the EU have to strengthen its posture in the region from a regional and geopolitical perspective?
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The 2007 European Union (EU) Strategy for Central Asia was reviewed for the fourth time in 2015. Over the last eight years, the EU has successfully established several institutionalised mechanisms for strengthening relations and working with Central Asian governments, including an increased presence on the ground. Despite this, the EU’s engagement in Central Asia is one of limited to no impact. The region has become more unstable; forecast gas deliveries from the region to Europe have so far not materialised; trade is minimal with the exception of EU-Kazakhstan links, democracy is seen by the Central Asian regimes as a threat to their survival; corruption severely undermines economic development and siphons off much of the development aid; and the human rights situation has been backsliding. The EU should not and cannot compete with Russia and China in the region. The EU would do best to focus on a few key areas where it can achieve concrete results. Besides broader economic and some security cooperation, the EU should focus on education in supporting the region’s development while further emphasizing human rights and strengthening political and financial support to civil society.
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Central Asia, located at the centre of the Eurasian continent and straddling the borders of some of the world’s most pressing hot spots, offers economic opportunities and natural resources but also remains insecure and troublesome. For the European Union, the region is not a priority. It is too distant and Brussels experiences difficulties in executing its democratic and value-based agenda on the ground. Regional dynamics have been significantly influenced by many players present in the region; Russia, China and the United States are the most significant. Russia’s position relies on a holistic approach, including military might and the more recent Eurasian narrative. China, pursuing its Silk Road ideas, has no equal in trade and energy. The US has partially retreated from Central Asia and is reviewing its security-centered strategy. Under these circumstances, what should the EU regional approach look like? What are the shared interests and divergent objectives of the actors present in Central Asia? With what actors could the EU cooperate and with whom should it abstain from regional rapprochement? Finally, what options does the EU have to strengthen its posture in the region from a regional and geopolitical perspective?
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The 2007 European Union (EU) Strategy for Central Asia was reviewed for the fourth time in 2015. Over the last eight years, the EU has successfully established several institutionalised mechanisms for strengthening relations and working with Central Asian governments, including an increased presence on the ground. Despite this, the EU’s engagement in Central Asia is one of limited to no impact. The region has become more unstable; forecast gas deliveries from the region to Europe have so far not materialised; trade is minimal with the exception of EU-Kazakhstan links, democracy is seen by the Central Asian regimes as a threat to their survival; corruption severely undermines economic development and siphons off much of the development aid; and the human rights situation has been backsliding. The EU should not and cannot compete with Russia and China in the region. The EU would do best to focus on a few key areas where it can achieve concrete results. Besides broader economic and some security cooperation, the EU should focus on education in supporting the region’s development while further emphasizing human rights and strengthening political and financial support to civil society.
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The 2007 European Union (EU) Strategy for Central Asia was reviewed for the fourth time in 2015. Over the last eight years, the EU has successfully established several institutionalised mechanisms for strengthening relations and working with Central Asian governments, including an increased presence on the ground. Despite this, the EU’s engagement in Central Asia is one of limited to no impact. The region has become more unstable; forecast gas deliveries from the region to Europe have so far not materialised; trade is minimal with the exception of EU-Kazakhstan links, democracy is seen by the Central Asian regimes as a threat to their survival; corruption severely undermines economic development and siphons off much of the development aid; and the human rights situation has been backsliding. The EU should not and cannot compete with Russia and China in the region. The EU would do best to focus on a few key areas where it can achieve concrete results. Besides broader economic and some security cooperation, the EU should focus on education in supporting the region’s development while further emphasizing human rights and strengthening political and financial support to civil society.
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Central Asia, located at the centre of the Eurasian continent and straddling the borders of some of the world’s most pressing hot spots, offers economic opportunities and natural resources but also remains insecure and troublesome. For the European Union, the region is not a priority. It is too distant and Brussels experiences difficulties in executing its democratic and value-based agenda on the ground. Regional dynamics have been significantly influenced by many players present in the region; Russia, China and the United States are the most significant. Russia’s position relies on a holistic approach, including military might and the more recent Eurasian narrative. China, pursuing its Silk Road ideas, has no equal in trade and energy. The US has partially retreated from Central Asia and is reviewing its security-centered strategy. Under these circumstances, what should the EU regional approach look like? What are the shared interests and divergent objectives of the actors present in Central Asia? With what actors could the EU cooperate and with whom should it abstain from regional rapprochement? Finally, what options does the EU have to strengthen its posture in the region from a regional and geopolitical perspective?
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Az előre meghirdetettek szerint a holland haderő tüzérségi lövészetet hajtott ma végre a Várpalotához közeli csörlőházi lőtéren (bakonykúti szektor). Hogy mivel, azt csak sejthetjük, de alighanem aknavetőkkel illetve a gyakorlatozók vasúti érkezését taglaló bejegyzésben említett PzH 2000-essel. A hangfelvételt itt lehet meghallgatni.

Ejtőernyős világítógránátok a lőtér felett, hosszú expozíciós felvételen.

Fotó ez égésidő végéről. Miután elalszik, a gránát még fénycsíkot maga után húzva hullik alá.

Mozgás a Baglyason röviddel a lövészet vége után.

Pillantás a másik irányba, látszik a várpalotai templom, a távolban pedig Pétfürdő.

Zord

American Barrett M82 Anti-Material Rifle

There is a fairly universal consensus in Washington that Russia presents a potential geopolitical threat to the United States. The threat derives from Vladimir Putin’s desire to reshape the international order by restoring his country’s position as a great power and his willingness to modernize and wield Russia’s military forces in service of this aim. However, there is no such consensus on how to deal with this threat. Some experts argue for more robust U.S. and NATO policies aimed at deterring future Russian adventurism, including positioning significant military forces in Eastern Europe, providing lethal military equipment to Ukraine and Georgia, and starting preparations to deploy intermediate-range nuclear forces to Europe. They say that these measures, in combination with Russia’s economic travails, will strengthen the position of those in Moscow officialdom who are opposed to Russia’s military adventurism.

This argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how humans react to threats.

—–

Originally published by War on the Rocks. Click here to read the rest of the article.