<p>Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have signed an unprecedented agreement that, in essence, vows mutual defence. It is similar to NATO’s Article 5, as it considers an attack on one to be an attack on both. Saudi Arabia’s defence cooperation with Pakistan is no secret. But what worries observers is the historical context of their collaboration, particularly regarding Pakistan’s nuclear programme. Saudi Arabia's perceived threats from Iran add to the concern. Analysts in India, meanwhile, are questioning whether Saudi Arabia might support Pakistan militarily in future conflicts, such as the recent Operation Sindoor. Officially, India has said it would ‘study the implications’ of the pact. Here is why the Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) is considered problematic.</p><h2>Pakistan nuclear weapons for Saudi Arabia? A question debated for decades</h2><p>There is no evidence that Pakistan has transferred nuclear weapons or technology to Saudi Arabia. However, the possibility has been debated in strategic circles for years. Historical, cultural, and military ties, coupled with shared security concerns—especially regarding Iran—and recent geopolitical shifts in the Middle East, make this a persistent issue.</p><h2>What is the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?</h2><p>The Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) states that an attack on either nation will be treated as an attack on both. It includes provisions for intelligence sharing, joint military exercises, and cybersecurity cooperation. Although nuclear weapons are not mentioned, analysts fear that the agreement could lay the groundwork for future nuclear cooperation if regional threats increase. In Pakistan’s case, this mostly concerns India, whose strategic community is closely analysing the implications of this pact.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nuclear-armed-pakistan-saudi-arabia-sign-defence-deal-india-says-will-study-implications-1758167829385">Nuclear armed Pakistan, Saudi Arabia sign defence deal, India says 'will study implications'</a></p><h2>Saudi and Pakistan enjoy a long strategic relationship</h2><p>Relations between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan date back to the 1970s, when the Kingdom provided economic aid, cheap oil, and military support. In return, Pakistan deployed tens of thousands of troops to Saudi Arabia and helped train its forces. Saudi Arabia has also made major investments in Pakistan’s defence sector.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/saudi-crown-prince-and-pakistan-pm-ink-major-deal-agreement-follows-israeli-attack-on-doha-1758166553353/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/saudi-crown-prince-and-pakistan-pm-ink-major-deal-agreement-follows-israeli-attack-on-doha-1758166553353/embed</a></p><h2>Did Saudi Arabia help bankroll Pakistan’s nuclear programme?</h2><p>There have been reports suggesting that Saudi Arabia helped fund Pakistan’s nuclear development. In the 1980s, a former CIA official claimed that Saudi Arabia provided more than $1 billion to Pakistan’s nuclear efforts. In return, it was rumoured that Saudi Arabia expected access to nuclear weapons if needed in the future, especially in the event of an Iranian threat.</p><p>In 2003, a Pakistani source claimed that a secret nuclear deal was discussed during a visit by then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. The alleged deal offered Saudi Arabia nuclear assistance in exchange for continued oil support. Both countries denied any such agreement.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/saudi-arabia-temporarily-bans-visas-for-india-pakistan-bangladesh-and-11-other-countries-heres-why-8935247">Saudi Arabia temporarily bans visas for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and 11 other countries - Here’s why</a></p><h2>Does Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman want nuclear weapons?</h2><p>Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who signed the defence pact with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, has given ambiguous answers on the nuclear questions in the past. In a 2018 CBS interview, he said that if Iran built a nuclear bomb, Saudi Arabia would follow “as soon as possible.” At the time, this statement raised global concerns. Given the close ties between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, experts believe Pakistan could be the most likely source of nuclear assistance, whether through direct transfer or technical support to build weapons independently.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-israel-war-when-pakistani-aq-khan-network-helped-iran-s-atomic-programme-and-possibly-helped-its-quest-for-a-nuclear-weapon-1750679523812">When Pakistani AQ Khan network helped Iran's atomic programme and possibly helped its quest for a nuclear weapon</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>Saudi nuclear energy programme</h2><p>Officially, Saudi Arabia maintains that it seeks nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In 2010, it announced plans to construct 16 nuclear reactors. Progress has been slow. Notably, Saudi Arabia has not signed the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which would allow stricter international inspections.</p><p>In 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that Saudi Arabia, with Chinese assistance, had built a facility for extracting uranium. This is legal under international law, but it increased suspicions about possible dual-use intentions.</p><h2>Pakistan’s role: a nuclear detour for Saudi Arabia?</h2><p>Pakistan is one of the few Muslim-majority countries with nuclear weapons. It has previously faced allegations of nuclear proliferation, including through the AQ Khan network, which was linked to North Korea, Libya, and Iran. Pakistan’s strong relationship with Saudi Arabia makes it a plausible future partner if Saudi Arabia decides to acquire nuclear weapons.</p><p>If Iran develops nuclear arms, Saudi Arabia might seek to "borrow" or purchase warheads from Pakistan. Experts are concerned that the new defence pact makes such an outcome more plausible.</p>

The Pakistan-Saudi Arabia mutual defence pact renews concerns about their possible nuclear cooperation, given the two nations' history, shared security goals, and Saudi Arabia's rivalry with Iran. India is watching, and so would the international strategic community. 

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have signed an unprecedented agreement that, in essence, vows mutual defence. It is similar to NATO’s Article 5, as it considers an attack on one to be an attack on both. Saudi Arabia’s defence cooperation with Pakistan is no secret. But what worries observers is the historical context of their collaboration, particularly regarding Pakistan’s nuclear programme. Saudi Arabia's perceived threats from Iran add to the concern. Analysts in India, meanwhile, are questioning whether Saudi Arabia might support Pakistan militarily in future conflicts, such as the recent Operation Sindoor. Officially, India has said it would ‘study the implications’ of the pact. Here is why the Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) is considered problematic. Pakistan nuclear weapons for Saudi Arabia? A question debated for decades There is no evidence that Pakistan has transferred nuclear weapons or technology to Saudi Arabia. However, the possibility has been debated in strategic circles for years. Historical, cultural, and military ties, coupled with shared security concerns—especially regarding Iran—and recent geopolitical shifts in the Middle East, make this a persistent issue. What is the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? The Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) states that an attack on either nation will be treated as an attack on both. It includes provisions for intelligence sharing, joint military exercises, and cybersecurity cooperation. Although nuclear weapons are not mentioned, analysts fear that the agreement could lay the groundwork for future nuclear cooperation if regional threats increase. In Pakistan’s case, this mostly concerns India, whose strategic community is closely analysing the implications of this pact. Also read: Nuclear armed Pakistan, Saudi Arabia sign defence deal, India says 'will study implications' Saudi and Pakistan enjoy a long strategic relationship Relations between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan date back to the 1970s, when the Kingdom provided economic aid, cheap oil, and military support. In return, Pakistan deployed tens of thousands of troops to Saudi Arabia and helped train its forces. Saudi Arabia has also made major investments in Pakistan’s defence sector. https://www.wionews.com/videos/saudi-crown-prince-and-pakistan-pm-ink-major-deal-agreement-follows-israeli-attack-on-doha-1758166553353/embed Did Saudi Arabia help bankroll Pakistan’s nuclear programme? There have been reports suggesting that Saudi Arabia helped fund Pakistan’s nuclear development. In the 1980s, a former CIA official claimed that Saudi Arabia provided more than $1 billion to Pakistan’s nuclear efforts. In return, it was rumoured that Saudi Arabia expected access to nuclear weapons if needed in the future, especially in the event of an Iranian threat. In 2003, a Pakistani source claimed that a secret nuclear deal was discussed during a visit by then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. The alleged deal offered Saudi Arabia nuclear assistance in exchange for continued oil support. Both countries denied any such agreement. Also read: Saudi Arabia temporarily bans visas for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and 11 other countries - Here’s why Does Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman want nuclear weapons? Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who signed the defence pact with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, has given ambiguous answers on the nuclear questions in the past. In a 2018 CBS interview, he said that if Iran built a nuclear bomb, Saudi Arabia would follow “as soon as possible.” At the time, this statement raised global concerns. Given the close ties between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, experts believe Pakistan could be the most likely source of nuclear assistance, whether through direct transfer or technical support to build weapons independently. Also read: When Pakistani AQ Khan network helped Iran's atomic programme and possibly helped its quest for a nuclear weapon Saudi nuclear energy programme Officially, Saudi Arabia maintains that it seeks nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. In 2010, it announced plans to construct 16 nuclear reactors. Progress has been slow. Notably, Saudi Arabia has not signed the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which would allow stricter international inspections. In 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that Saudi Arabia, with Chinese assistance, had built a facility for extracting uranium. This is legal under international law, but it increased suspicions about possible dual-use intentions. Pakistan’s role: a nuclear detour for Saudi Arabia? Pakistan is one of the few Muslim-majority countries with nuclear weapons. It has previously faced allegations of nuclear proliferation, including through the AQ Khan network, which was linked to North Korea, Libya, and Iran. Pakistan’s strong relationship with Saudi Arabia makes it a plausible future partner if Saudi Arabia decides to acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran develops nuclear arms, Saudi Arabia might seek to "borrow" or purchase warheads from Pakistan. Experts are concerned that the new defence pact makes such an outcome more plausible.

<p>The Pakistan-Saudi Arabia mutual defence pact renews concerns about their possible nuclear cooperation, given the two nations' history, shared security goals, and Saudi Arabia's rivalry with Iran. India is watching, and so would the international strategic community.&nbsp;</p>

Pakistan - Saudi Arabia mutual defence pact: Next, nukes for Saudi? Why new agreement raises concerns, given the history of...

<p>Podcasting, once a niche medium for storytelling, education, and light-hearted banter, has evolved into a potent vehicle for ideological warfare—sometimes with deadly consequences. What began in the early 2000s as an accessible, soothing pastime has, by 2025, become a channel for weaponised words, amplifying conspiracy theories, radicalising audiences trapped in echo chambers, and deepening political divides. Charlie Kirk, both a martyr for the US right-wing and a hate figure for the extreme left, was an active podcaster before he was murdered this month.</p><h2>Words can kill: The far-right vs far-left podcast ecosystem</h2><p>While several longstanding hosts like Joe Rogan and Glenn Beck found refuge in podcasting—often because they were shunned or limited by mainstream media—podcasts have become algorithm-driven battlegrounds. Hosts like Charlie Kirk and the Chapo Trap House crew stand on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, reaching vast audiences. Beyond mere commentary, these podcasts serve as recruitment tools, propaganda mills, and community-building hubs. Their evolution mirrors broader digital media trends: voices colliding with unregulated extremism, fuelled by monetisation and social media virality.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/after-trump-blames-left-for-radicalising-charlie-kirk-killer-damning-study-on-how-domestic-terrorists-are-mostly-right-wing-vanishes-from-doj-website-1758086933683/amp">DOJ quietly deletes study on how most domestic terrorists are right-wing after Trump blames left for Kirk's death</a></p><h2>The origin of innocence: Evolution of podcasting</h2><p>Podcasting’s boom began around 2004, rooted in RSS feeds and MP3 downloads. Early shows focused on entertainment, learning, or storytelling—especially true crime (<i>Serial</i>), science (<i>Radiolab</i>), or comedy. Podcasts were perfect for passive listening during commutes or chores, resembling public radio without ads. As digital tech advanced and big tech platforms like Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts emerged, anyone with a microphone could create content, bypassing traditional gatekeepers.</p><p>The transformation of pocasts into a cultural war zone began in the 2010s, especially after Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory. Ideology-driven and divisive rhetoric became central to many shows.</p><h2>How Kirk went from campus provocateur to icon</h2><p><i>The Charlie Kirk Show</i> helped mobilise MAGA youth, inspiring over 37,000 chapters of Kirk’s NGO Turning Point USA. After his death, the show’s influence surged.<br>Kirk’s early podcasts focused on campus debates and “free speech” battles but gradually hardened in tone. His content began blending Christian nationalism, Trumpist narratives, and youth outreach.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>How podcasts became the far-right’s arsenal to weaponise words</h2><p>Algorithmic bias and underserved market demand led to dominance of rightwing podcasts online. Left-wing podcasts, while praised for originality, often lack comparable real-world influence.</p><p>Far-right podcasts aggressively weaponised the medium, creating a networked system of radicalisation. <i>The Charlie Kirk Show </i>exemplifies this: a slickly produced mix of anti-woke rants, conspiratorial framing, and culture war commentary turned Kirk into a Gen Z conservative icon. His assassination in September only intensified the show’s influence, propelling it to number 1 on Apple Podcasts and immortalising Kirk as a martyr among conservatives.</p><p>The refrain of conservative and far-right podcasts is consistent: frame progressives as existential threats, delegitimise mainstream media, and encourage both online and on-street activism. Phrases like “fight back” or “defend your country” are common, paired with disdain for “globalists,” “woke elites,” or “leftist propaganda,” creating a coordinated content ecosystem preaching mostly to the converted.</p><p>Shows like <i>The Daily Shoah </i>and <i>Fash the Nation</i> are known for promoting white nationalist ideologies, often masked as humour or coded language.&nbsp;</p><p>Their rhetoric imagines violent futures for the US and normalises real-life confrontation.&nbsp;</p><p>Hosts frequently cross-promote on apps like Telegram, swap guest spots, and build digital communities primed for activism.&nbsp;</p><p>Even deplatforming by YouTube or Facebook does not stop them; RSS feeds, Rumble, and peer-to-peer hosting keep content alive.</p><p><i>The Daily Shoah</i>, hosted by Mike Enoch and others, uses white nationalist comedy. <i>Fash the Nation </i>popularised the “Great Replacement” theory, which posits that white populations are being systematically replaced through immigration and demographic change, a racist conspiracy. <i>Killstream</i> uses shock-jock tactics and live-stream debates to promote street-level confrontations.</p><p>These podcasts have strong reach among disillusioned youth and are amplified by social media and recommendation algorithms.&nbsp;</p><p>They create “rabbit holes” where ironic or casual listening can shift into genuine belief and recruitment for far-right causes.&nbsp;</p><p>Their popularity became evident when right-wing shows outnumbered and topped listenership on platforms like Spotify and Apple, catering to an underserved anti-woke demographic.</p><h2>The far-left is far behind in the podcast war</h2><p>The far-left uses intellectualism, satire, and irony to reach audiences. <i>Chapo Trap House</i> pioneered the “dirtbag left” style—a mix of socialist critique, comedic takedowns of liberal centrists, and profanity-laden disdain for both Democratic and Republican parties.</p><p>The show was a Patreon success, once earning over $160,000 per month, funding live tours and shaping millennial socialist discourse.</p><p>Other shows include <i>The Antifada</i>, which combines Marxist theory with event commentary, and <i>Revolutionary Left Radio</i>, which offers dense philosophical monologues critiquing capitalism and imperialism through radical, often academic frameworks.</p><p>But when compared to right-wing podcasts, these leftist shows lack mainstream platform support and have a more limited reach.</p><p>They, however, influence activist networks and political consciousness among younger listeners.</p><h2>Podcasts are trusted—and that’s where the danger lies</h2><p>A 2023 Pew Research Center study showed that over 30 per cent of listeners trust podcasts more than traditional news. This trust makes podcasts fertile ground for alternate reality construction, ideological grooming, and weaponising words that can have violent outcomes.</p><p>Far-right podcasts normalise political violence, white racial grievance, and conspiratorial thinking. Their hosts have been linked to real-world incidents—from the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in August 2017 to the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot.&nbsp;</p><p>Their messaging often frames violence as defensive and necessary.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/fbi-s-arctic-fox-case-targeted-gop-and-charlie-kirk-trump-lashes-out-at-biden-1758094242635">FBI’s 'Arctic Fox' case targeted GOP and Charlie Kirk? Trump lashes out at Biden</a></p><h2>Parasocial bonds: When host becomes indoctrinator</h2><p>Both far-right and far-left podcasts exploit parasocial bonds—the illusion of friendship between host and listener—to create loyalty and identity.&nbsp;</p><p>The line between opinion and indoctrination dissolves, when your “friend” tells you who to fear, mock, or ignore.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/-some-hate-can-t-be-negotiated-charlie-kirk-s-shooter-tyler-robinson-s-text-to-partner-exposes-motive-here-s-what-he-said-1758083338852">'Some hate can’t be negotiated': Charlie Kirk's 'shooter' Tyler Robinson's text to partner exposes motive - Here's what he said</a></p><h2>Podcasts spew venom: Is censorship required?</h2><p>Podcasting began as an open, humanising format for casual listening but has become a digital battlefield at the hands of some hosts and listeners. &nbsp;Each episode can be a weapon; each listener a potential recruit.</p><p>Currently, podcasts operate largely in a legal vacuum, with no formal censorship beyond some deplatforming of controversial hosts.&nbsp;</p><p>It is time to balance free speech with responsibility—curbing algorithmic extremism without blanket bans.</p><p>Listeners need better media literacy—to understand framing, bias, and rhetorical manipulation.</p><p>Creators must acknowledge their influence and avoid exploiting parasocial relationships.</p><p>The genie is out of the bottle. Podcasts are no longer mere audio backdrops to our days; they are frontlines in a culture war.</p>

Charlie Kirk assassination has brought attention to podcast as a medium. Podcasting evolved from a casual pastime to a tool for ideological warfare, amplifying extremism via both far-right and far-left shows, with real-world consequences like radicalisation and violence



Podcasting, once a niche medium for storytelling, education, and light-hearted banter, has evolved into a potent vehicle for ideological warfare—sometimes with deadly consequences. What began in the early 2000s as an accessible, soothing pastime has, by 2025, become a channel for weaponised words, amplifying conspiracy theories, radicalising audiences trapped in echo chambers, and deepening political divides. Charlie Kirk, both a martyr for the US right-wing and a hate figure for the extreme left, was an active podcaster before he was murdered this month. Words can kill: The far-right vs far-left podcast ecosystem While several longstanding hosts like Joe Rogan and Glenn Beck found refuge in podcasting—often because they were shunned or limited by mainstream media—podcasts have become algorithm-driven battlegrounds. Hosts like Charlie Kirk and the Chapo Trap House crew stand on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, reaching vast audiences. Beyond mere commentary, these podcasts serve as recruitment tools, propaganda mills, and community-building hubs. Their evolution mirrors broader digital media trends: voices colliding with unregulated extremism, fuelled by monetisation and social media virality. Also read: DOJ quietly deletes study on how most domestic terrorists are right-wing after Trump blames left for Kirk's death The origin of innocence: Evolution of podcasting Podcasting’s boom began around 2004, rooted in RSS feeds and MP3 downloads. Early shows focused on entertainment, learning, or storytelling—especially true crime (Serial), science (Radiolab), or comedy. Podcasts were perfect for passive listening during commutes or chores, resembling public radio without ads. As digital tech advanced and big tech platforms like Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google Podcasts emerged, anyone with a microphone could create content, bypassing traditional gatekeepers. The transformation of pocasts into a cultural war zone began in the 2010s, especially after Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory. Ideology-driven and divisive rhetoric became central to many shows. How Kirk went from campus provocateur to icon The Charlie Kirk Show helped mobilise MAGA youth, inspiring over 37,000 chapters of Kirk’s NGO Turning Point USA. After his death, the show’s influence surged. Kirk’s early podcasts focused on campus debates and “free speech” battles but gradually hardened in tone. His content began blending Christian nationalism, Trumpist narratives, and youth outreach. How podcasts became the far-right’s arsenal to weaponise words Algorithmic bias and underserved market demand led to dominance of rightwing podcasts online. Left-wing podcasts, while praised for originality, often lack comparable real-world influence. Far-right podcasts aggressively weaponised the medium, creating a networked system of radicalisation. The Charlie Kirk Show exemplifies this: a slickly produced mix of anti-woke rants, conspiratorial framing, and culture war commentary turned Kirk into a Gen Z conservative icon. His assassination in September only intensified the show’s influence, propelling it to number 1 on Apple Podcasts and immortalising Kirk as a martyr among conservatives. The refrain of conservative and far-right podcasts is consistent: frame progressives as existential threats, delegitimise mainstream media, and encourage both online and on-street activism. Phrases like “fight back” or “defend your country” are common, paired with disdain for “globalists,” “woke elites,” or “leftist propaganda,” creating a coordinated content ecosystem preaching mostly to the converted. Shows like The Daily Shoah and Fash the Nation are known for promoting white nationalist ideologies, often masked as humour or coded language. Their rhetoric imagines violent futures for the US and normalises real-life confrontation. Hosts frequently cross-promote on apps like Telegram, swap guest spots, and build digital communities primed for activism. Even deplatforming by YouTube or Facebook does not stop them; RSS feeds, Rumble, and peer-to-peer hosting keep content alive. The Daily Shoah, hosted by Mike Enoch and others, uses white nationalist comedy. Fash the Nation popularised the “Great Replacement” theory, which posits that white populations are being systematically replaced through immigration and demographic change, a racist conspiracy. Killstream uses shock-jock tactics and live-stream debates to promote street-level confrontations. These podcasts have strong reach among disillusioned youth and are amplified by social media and recommendation algorithms. They create “rabbit holes” where ironic or casual listening can shift into genuine belief and recruitment for far-right causes. Their popularity became evident when right-wing shows outnumbered and topped listenership on platforms like Spotify and Apple, catering to an underserved anti-woke demographic. The far-left is far behind in the podcast war The far-left uses intellectualism, satire, and irony to reach audiences. Chapo Trap House pioneered the “dirtbag left” style—a mix of socialist critique, comedic takedowns of liberal centrists, and profanity-laden disdain for both Democratic and Republican parties. The show was a Patreon success, once earning over $160,000 per month, funding live tours and shaping millennial socialist discourse. Other shows include The Antifada, which combines Marxist theory with event commentary, and Revolutionary Left Radio, which offers dense philosophical monologues critiquing capitalism and imperialism through radical, often academic frameworks. But when compared to right-wing podcasts, these leftist shows lack mainstream platform support and have a more limited reach. They, however, influence activist networks and political consciousness among younger listeners. Podcasts are trusted—and that’s where the danger lies A 2023 Pew Research Center study showed that over 30 per cent of listeners trust podcasts more than traditional news. This trust makes podcasts fertile ground for alternate reality construction, ideological grooming, and weaponising words that can have violent outcomes. Far-right podcasts normalise political violence, white racial grievance, and conspiratorial thinking. Their hosts have been linked to real-world incidents—from the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in August 2017 to the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot. Their messaging often frames violence as defensive and necessary. Also read: FBI’s 'Arctic Fox' case targeted GOP and Charlie Kirk? Trump lashes out at Biden Parasocial bonds: When host becomes indoctrinator Both far-right and far-left podcasts exploit parasocial bonds—the illusion of friendship between host and listener—to create loyalty and identity. The line between opinion and indoctrination dissolves, when your “friend” tells you who to fear, mock, or ignore. Also read: 'Some hate can’t be negotiated': Charlie Kirk's 'shooter' Tyler Robinson's text to partner exposes motive - Here's what he said Podcasts spew venom: Is censorship required? Podcasting began as an open, humanising format for casual listening but has become a digital battlefield at the hands of some hosts and listeners. Each episode can be a weapon; each listener a potential recruit. Currently, podcasts operate largely in a legal vacuum, with no formal censorship beyond some deplatforming of controversial hosts. It is time to balance free speech with responsibility—curbing algorithmic extremism without blanket bans. Listeners need better media literacy—to understand framing, bias, and rhetorical manipulation. Creators must acknowledge their influence and avoid exploiting parasocial relationships. The genie is out of the bottle. Podcasts are no longer mere audio backdrops to our days; they are frontlines in a culture war.

<p>Charlie Kirk assassination has brought attention to podcast as a medium. Podcasting evolved from a casual pastime to a tool for ideological warfare, amplifying extremism via both far-right and far-left shows, with real-world consequences like radicalisation and violence</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Death by Podcast: Charlie Kirk murder is also about how a new medium went from soothing pastime to weaponised words

<p>Every year, thousands of highly skilled Indian professionals travel to the US on temporary work visas like the H‑1B and L‑1, contributing significantly to America's tech sector and economy. But while these workers help build multibillion-dollar businesses, billions of their own dollars quietly disappear into the US system and are never repatriated. The reason? India and the US do not have a 'totalisation agreement', a bilateral social security pact that could have protected these workers from losing their hard-earned money.</p><h2>What is a totalisation agreement?</h2><p>A totalisation agreement is a formal arrangement made by two countries to coordinate their respective social security systems. These agreements ensure that citizens from these countries can either claim US Social Security benefits or avoid paying into the system entirely if they are already contributing to their home country’s system.</p><p>The aim is to avoid double taxation, so that workers do not pay into the social security systems of both countries for the same work. It also preserves eligibility for benefits by allowing workers to combine work credits from both countries to qualify for retirement or disability benefits.</p><p>The US has signed totalisation pacts with more than 30 countries including Canada, the UK, Germany, South Korea, and Japan, but not India.</p><p>The Indian government has failed to reach such a pact despite repeated diplomatic efforts and negotiations that have dragged on for years without resolution.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-us-trade-talks-conclude-1758027481473">‘Intensifying efforts to achieve early conclusion’: India-US trade talks conclude after 7 hours amid Trump’s tariff war</a></p><h2>How much are Indian techies losing each year in the US?</h2><p>Indian professionals on temporary work visas are required to pay US payroll taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). This includes 6.2 per cent toward Social Security and 1.45 per cent toward Medicare, totalling 7.65 per cent of their gross wages, withheld automatically by employers.</p><p>But here’s the catch: to qualify for US Social Security benefits, a worker must contribute for at least 40 quarters, or 10 years. However, most H‑1B and L‑1 workers return to India within six years—unless their visas are extended—well before they become eligible to claim any benefits. As a result, their contributions are ‘forfeited’.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-us-wrap-up-trade-talks-india-says-talks-were-very-positive-1758041424039/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-us-wrap-up-trade-talks-india-says-talks-were-very-positive-1758041424039/embed</a></p><h2>What is the financial loss to Indians whose social security payments are not repatriated?</h2><p>The Harvard Journal on Legislation reported that Indians on H‑1B and L‑1 visas contribute approximately $3 billion annually to US Social Security. More than $25 billion have been lost to them over the years, even by conservative estimates.</p><p>Between 2002 and 2012 alone, Indian workers contributed over $27.6 billion, according to Harvard research. That places the total lost contributions well into the tens of billions of dollars over the last two decades.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajesh-agrawal-india-us-trade-negotiator-profile-1758012761187">Rajesh Agrawal: Meet India's chief trade negotiator leading talks with US</a></p><h2>Into the black hole: Where does money not given to Indian techies in the US go?</h2><p>These funds are not held in a personal account for each worker. They are not returned to them after they leave the US. Instead, the money flows into the US Social Security Trust Funds, which operate on a 'pay-as-you-go' basis. This means today’s workers fund the benefits of current retirees.</p><p>For Indian workers who do not stay long enough to qualify, the contributions effectively become a sunk cost—a financial black hole with no return.</p><p>As there is no totalisation pact in place, there is also no legal or policy mechanism for India to recover or redirect these contributions for its returning citizens.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-my-friend-indian-pm-modi-thanks-trump-for-special-birthday-wish-amid-trade-tensions-1758043756592">'Narendra, doing a tremendous job...: Trump calls Indian PM Modi on his birthday, shares special wish amid trade tensions</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>How totalisation agreements of other countries help workers</h2><p>Nations with totalisation agreements have far more favourable outcomes. Social security benefits of their workers are either transferred or paid out abroad. Work years in one country are counted or added toward benefit eligibility in another. Exemptions are made from dual payroll taxation when covered by the home country's system.</p><p>In the case of German workers, they can combine years worked in Germany and the US to qualify for benefits in either country. Canadian citizens can avoid paying into US Social Security if they are already contributing to the Canadian Pension Plan.</p><p>Even Brazil, which signed a totalisation agreement with the US in 2015, has begun implementation steps.</p><p>But India—home to the largest number of H‑1B workers—still has no such arrangement in force.</p><h2>Indian techies' money stashed in the US: What’s the US government’s position?</h2><p>India has consistently expressed interest in a totalisation agreement with the US, citing the vast financial losses to its citizens. But the US has dragged its feet. The core issue appears to be that India’s social security system (mainly managed by the EPFO, or Employee Provident Fund Organisation) is not considered equivalent to the US social security model in terms of structure and guarantees, making negotiations complex.</p><p>Indian workers remain the largest group affected by the absence of such a pact.</p><h2>Do Indian workers in the US get their social security benefits paid to them?</h2><p>Yes, but it happens only to those who stay long enough. Non-Green Card holders can receive US Social Security payouts abroad only if they have worked in the US for at least 10 years and meet other eligibility criteria.</p><p>But since most Indian tech professionals leave well before that threshold, this exception helps very few.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/from-kremlin-laundromat-to-friend-trump-s-u-turn-brings-india-us-back-to-negotiating-table-trade-talks-in-delhi-today-1757990317044">From 'Kremlin laundromat' to 'friend': Trump's U-turn brings India, US back to negotiating table; trade talks in Delhi today</a></p><h2>Beyond individual financial loss: Why the totalisation pact matters</h2><p>The forfeited billions from Indian professionals are, in fact, helping subsidise America's aging population. This, in essence, makes Indian tech workers involuntary contributors to the US retirement system, with no reciprocal benefits.</p><p>For a country like India, where social security structures are still evolving and returnee professionals often face reintegration challenges, this represents a serious policy blind spot.</p><h2>The bottom line: India and the US must enter into a totalisation agreement</h2><p>This has been a long-standing demand. A totalisation pact can prevent double payroll taxation, allow contribution credits to be totalised (combined across countries), and create pathways for payouts or refunds for returning Indian citizens.</p><p>Until then, billions of dollars from Indian techies will continue to disappear into a system that gives them nothing in return.</p>

Indian tech workers in the US never get paid billions in Social Security contributions. This is  due to the absence of a totalisation agreement between India and the US. There is no refunds or benefits when these workers return. Where's the money gone?

Every year, thousands of highly skilled Indian professionals travel to the US on temporary work visas like the H‑1B and L‑1, contributing significantly to America's tech sector and economy. But while these workers help build multibillion-dollar businesses, billions of their own dollars quietly disappear into the US system and are never repatriated. The reason? India and the US do not have a 'totalisation agreement', a bilateral social security pact that could have protected these workers from losing their hard-earned money. What is a totalisation agreement? A totalisation agreement is a formal arrangement made by two countries to coordinate their respective social security systems. These agreements ensure that citizens from these countries can either claim US Social Security benefits or avoid paying into the system entirely if they are already contributing to their home country’s system. The aim is to avoid double taxation, so that workers do not pay into the social security systems of both countries for the same work. It also preserves eligibility for benefits by allowing workers to combine work credits from both countries to qualify for retirement or disability benefits. The US has signed totalisation pacts with more than 30 countries including Canada, the UK, Germany, South Korea, and Japan, but not India. The Indian government has failed to reach such a pact despite repeated diplomatic efforts and negotiations that have dragged on for years without resolution. Also read: ‘Intensifying efforts to achieve early conclusion’: India-US trade talks conclude after 7 hours amid Trump’s tariff war How much are Indian techies losing each year in the US? Indian professionals on temporary work visas are required to pay US payroll taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). This includes 6.2 per cent toward Social Security and 1.45 per cent toward Medicare, totalling 7.65 per cent of their gross wages, withheld automatically by employers. But here’s the catch: to qualify for US Social Security benefits, a worker must contribute for at least 40 quarters, or 10 years. However, most H‑1B and L‑1 workers return to India within six years—unless their visas are extended—well before they become eligible to claim any benefits. As a result, their contributions are ‘forfeited’. https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-us-wrap-up-trade-talks-india-says-talks-were-very-positive-1758041424039/embed What is the financial loss to Indians whose social security payments are not repatriated? The Harvard Journal on Legislation reported that Indians on H‑1B and L‑1 visas contribute approximately $3 billion annually to US Social Security. More than $25 billion have been lost to them over the years, even by conservative estimates. Between 2002 and 2012 alone, Indian workers contributed over $27.6 billion, according to Harvard research. That places the total lost contributions well into the tens of billions of dollars over the last two decades. Also read: Rajesh Agrawal: Meet India's chief trade negotiator leading talks with US Into the black hole: Where does money not given to Indian techies in the US go? These funds are not held in a personal account for each worker. They are not returned to them after they leave the US. Instead, the money flows into the US Social Security Trust Funds, which operate on a 'pay-as-you-go' basis. This means today’s workers fund the benefits of current retirees. For Indian workers who do not stay long enough to qualify, the contributions effectively become a sunk cost—a financial black hole with no return. As there is no totalisation pact in place, there is also no legal or policy mechanism for India to recover or redirect these contributions for its returning citizens. Also read: 'Narendra, doing a tremendous job...: Trump calls Indian PM Modi on his birthday, shares special wish amid trade tensions How totalisation agreements of other countries help workers Nations with totalisation agreements have far more favourable outcomes. Social security benefits of their workers are either transferred or paid out abroad. Work years in one country are counted or added toward benefit eligibility in another. Exemptions are made from dual payroll taxation when covered by the home country's system. In the case of German workers, they can combine years worked in Germany and the US to qualify for benefits in either country. Canadian citizens can avoid paying into US Social Security if they are already contributing to the Canadian Pension Plan. Even Brazil, which signed a totalisation agreement with the US in 2015, has begun implementation steps. But India—home to the largest number of H‑1B workers—still has no such arrangement in force. Indian techies' money stashed in the US: What’s the US government’s position? India has consistently expressed interest in a totalisation agreement with the US, citing the vast financial losses to its citizens. But the US has dragged its feet. The core issue appears to be that India’s social security system (mainly managed by the EPFO, or Employee Provident Fund Organisation) is not considered equivalent to the US social security model in terms of structure and guarantees, making negotiations complex. Indian workers remain the largest group affected by the absence of such a pact. Do Indian workers in the US get their social security benefits paid to them? Yes, but it happens only to those who stay long enough. Non-Green Card holders can receive US Social Security payouts abroad only if they have worked in the US for at least 10 years and meet other eligibility criteria. But since most Indian tech professionals leave well before that threshold, this exception helps very few. Also read: From 'Kremlin laundromat' to 'friend': Trump's U-turn brings India, US back to negotiating table; trade talks in Delhi today Beyond individual financial loss: Why the totalisation pact matters The forfeited billions from Indian professionals are, in fact, helping subsidise America's aging population. This, in essence, makes Indian tech workers involuntary contributors to the US retirement system, with no reciprocal benefits. For a country like India, where social security structures are still evolving and returnee professionals often face reintegration challenges, this represents a serious policy blind spot. The bottom line: India and the US must enter into a totalisation agreement This has been a long-standing demand. A totalisation pact can prevent double payroll taxation, allow contribution credits to be totalised (combined across countries), and create pathways for payouts or refunds for returning Indian citizens. Until then, billions of dollars from Indian techies will continue to disappear into a system that gives them nothing in return.

<p>Indian tech workers in the US never get paid billions in Social Security contributions. This is &nbsp;due to the absence of a totalisation agreement between India and the US. There is no refunds or benefits when these workers return. Where's the money gone?</p>

US keeps BILLIONS OF DOLLARS of Indian techies and skilled workers because of this reason. What is totalisation pact?

<p>Tens of thousands of ‘botnet’ computers and devices, ‘cleaned and released’ by FBI have now been hacked into, and could be used as cyber weapons targeting the digital infrastructure of nations, reports in the US media said. Law enforcement agencies and technology companies are engaged in an ongoing battle against these rapidly evolving botnets, as existing internet infrastructure struggles to keep pace with their increasing power and scope. Here is what you should know about these infected devices, which could very well be your own smart TV.</p><h2>What are botnets and why are they dangerous cyber weapons?</h2><p>Botnets are networks of private computers and internet-linked devices like smart TVs and routers infected with malicious software and controlled as a group without the owners' knowledge. They are typically used by hackers to send spam or launch other forms of malicious activity like ransomware or DDoS attacks.&nbsp;</p><p>The Federal Bureau of Investigation had released some 95,000 of these hacked devices, many of which have now been taken over by hackers in what is being described as a "feeding frenzy."</p><p>"It became a race to take them over as fast as possible," said Damian Menscher, a Google security engineer.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/-from-india-to-iran-8-countries-leading-in-cyber-warfare-capabilities-1757762993573">'From India to Iran': 8 countries leading in cyber warfare capabilities</a></p><h2>Aisuru: The botnet group that took over devices freed by FBI</h2><p>A botnet group called Aisuru took control of over a quarter of the machines ‘freed’ by FBI, and immediately began launching record-breaking distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, according to reports in the Wall Street Journal and other technology outlets.</p><p>According to Cloudflare, which tracks DDoS activity, 11.5 trillion bits per second of junk traffic were pushed on 1 September—the largest ever recorded.&nbsp;</p><p>This was a "world record" in intensity, said Cloudflare, noting that the attack could overwhelm the download speeds of over 50,000 home internet connections in a single strike.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/what-is-cyber-hygiene-basic-mistakes-that-cost-indians-their-data-1757837067436">What is 'cyber hygiene'? Basic mistakes that cost Indians their data</a></p><h2>Why the Aisuru botnet group matters: The stealth of cyber attacks</h2><p>Unlike traditional botnets that use personal computers, Aisuru relies on overlooked internet-connected devices such as routers, smart TVs, and security cameras.&nbsp;</p><p>These are usually left online, rarely updated, and can typically only join one botnet at a time.</p><p>When the FBI removed the old malware from the infected machines, it inadvertently opened the door for Aisuru to swoop in and take over, according to reports.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/uk-watchdog-warns-of-rising-teen-cyber-threats-1757741741006/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/uk-watchdog-warns-of-rising-teen-cyber-threats-1757741741006/embed</a></p><h2>Millions of smart TVs are part of botnet networks</h2><p>One botnet dismantled by Google earlier this year had grown from 74,000 Android TV devices in 2023 to over 10 million in two years, making it the largest known botnet composed of smart TVs, according to the reports.</p><p>Google said these smart TV botnets were used to click billions of ads in an advertising fraud scheme.&nbsp;</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/over-15-mn-cyber-attacks-but-not-even-1-successful-heres-how-india-outsmarted-pakistani-hackers-9065615">Over 1.5 million cyber attacks, but not even 1% successful | Here's how India outsmarted Pakistani hackers</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This network could easily have been repurposed for ransomware or DDoS attacks.</p><p>In August, a 22-year-old from Oregon was charged with operating a botnet that temporarily took down the social media platform X earlier this year. The case highlighted how vulnerable even major platforms are to such cyberattacks.</p><h2>Botnets are now being used by countries in cyber warfare</h2><p>Botnets can now disrupt not only websites but entire national internet infrastructures.</p><p>According to Craig Labovitz, head of technology at Nokia’s Deepfield division, the concern over botnets has shifted from the vulnerability of websites to the vulnerability of entire countries.&nbsp;</p><p>The UK has accused Russia’s GRU of launching DDoS attacks on Ukrainian banks in 2022, just before the military invasion. A botnet was most likely used in the operation.</p><h2>ResHydra: A botnet launching cyberattacks</h2><p>ResHydra, a botnet built from tens of millions of devices, initially focused on fraud but has since begun launching cyberattacks, said the reports.</p><p>Controlling a botnet of that scale could "do extreme damage to a country," warned Chris Formosa, a researcher with Lumen’s Black Lotus Labs.</p><p>If botnets like Aisuru and ResHydra continue to grow in size and strength—or combine forces—even the successful defences mounted by Google and Amazon could be overwhelmed, said the reports.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

FBI’s botnet takedown freed 95,000 devices but hackers quickly seized many of these machines. Dangerous botnet networks like Aisuru and ResHydra are capable of record-breaking cyber attacks and pose security threat to nations



Tens of thousands of ‘botnet’ computers and devices, ‘cleaned and released’ by FBI have now been hacked into, and could be used as cyber weapons targeting the digital infrastructure of nations, reports in the US media said. Law enforcement agencies and technology companies are engaged in an ongoing battle against these rapidly evolving botnets, as existing internet infrastructure struggles to keep pace with their increasing power and scope. Here is what you should know about these infected devices, which could very well be your own smart TV. What are botnets and why are they dangerous cyber weapons? Botnets are networks of private computers and internet-linked devices like smart TVs and routers infected with malicious software and controlled as a group without the owners' knowledge. They are typically used by hackers to send spam or launch other forms of malicious activity like ransomware or DDoS attacks. The Federal Bureau of Investigation had released some 95,000 of these hacked devices, many of which have now been taken over by hackers in what is being described as a "feeding frenzy." "It became a race to take them over as fast as possible," said Damian Menscher, a Google security engineer. Also read: 'From India to Iran': 8 countries leading in cyber warfare capabilities Aisuru: The botnet group that took over devices freed by FBI A botnet group called Aisuru took control of over a quarter of the machines ‘freed’ by FBI, and immediately began launching record-breaking distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, according to reports in the Wall Street Journal and other technology outlets. According to Cloudflare, which tracks DDoS activity, 11.5 trillion bits per second of junk traffic were pushed on 1 September—the largest ever recorded. This was a "world record" in intensity, said Cloudflare, noting that the attack could overwhelm the download speeds of over 50,000 home internet connections in a single strike. Also read: What is 'cyber hygiene'? Basic mistakes that cost Indians their data Why the Aisuru botnet group matters: The stealth of cyber attacks Unlike traditional botnets that use personal computers, Aisuru relies on overlooked internet-connected devices such as routers, smart TVs, and security cameras. These are usually left online, rarely updated, and can typically only join one botnet at a time. When the FBI removed the old malware from the infected machines, it inadvertently opened the door for Aisuru to swoop in and take over, according to reports. https://www.wionews.com/videos/uk-watchdog-warns-of-rising-teen-cyber-threats-1757741741006/embed Millions of smart TVs are part of botnet networks One botnet dismantled by Google earlier this year had grown from 74,000 Android TV devices in 2023 to over 10 million in two years, making it the largest known botnet composed of smart TVs, according to the reports. Google said these smart TV botnets were used to click billions of ads in an advertising fraud scheme. Also read: Over 1.5 million cyber attacks, but not even 1% successful | Here's how India outsmarted Pakistani hackers This network could easily have been repurposed for ransomware or DDoS attacks. In August, a 22-year-old from Oregon was charged with operating a botnet that temporarily took down the social media platform X earlier this year. The case highlighted how vulnerable even major platforms are to such cyberattacks. Botnets are now being used by countries in cyber warfare Botnets can now disrupt not only websites but entire national internet infrastructures. According to Craig Labovitz, head of technology at Nokia’s Deepfield division, the concern over botnets has shifted from the vulnerability of websites to the vulnerability of entire countries. The UK has accused Russia’s GRU of launching DDoS attacks on Ukrainian banks in 2022, just before the military invasion. A botnet was most likely used in the operation. ResHydra: A botnet launching cyberattacks ResHydra, a botnet built from tens of millions of devices, initially focused on fraud but has since begun launching cyberattacks, said the reports. Controlling a botnet of that scale could "do extreme damage to a country," warned Chris Formosa, a researcher with Lumen’s Black Lotus Labs. If botnets like Aisuru and ResHydra continue to grow in size and strength—or combine forces—even the successful defences mounted by Google and Amazon could be overwhelmed, said the reports.

<p>FBI’s botnet takedown freed 95,000 devices but hackers quickly seized many of these machines. Dangerous botnet networks like Aisuru and ResHydra are capable of record-breaking cyber attacks and pose security threat to nations</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Botnet cyber attacks: FBI released infected computers and devices after ‘cleaning’ them. Now, hackers have turned them into weapons

<p>Britain has banned Israelis from enrolling in the Royal College of Defence Studies (RCDS) in London. The ban, announced by the UK’s Ministry of Defence, will be implemented from next year. Israel’s “ongoing actions and further escalation” in the military operation in Gaza is the reason given by the UK, which is calling for an immediate ceasefire, the return of hostages, and increased humanitarian aid. Here is why it matters.</p><h2>Israelis banned from RCDS: Why it matters</h2><p>The move could escalate diplomatic tensions and trigger retaliatory actions in academic or security cooperation, and damage UK-Israel trust in intelligence and defence sectors. Other countries may take this as a cue and adopt similar educational or defence restrictions on Israel in the context of its war in Gaza against Hamas. While it could start a political debate within the UK about the fairness and strategic logic, the decision could set a precedent for other countries to use educational bans as a means of political protest in response to Israeli military actions.</p><h2>Why RCDS is important</h2><p>The Royal College of Defence Studies plays a role in shaping global strategic thinking on international security, defence diplomacy, and geopolitical challenges, as many of its graduates go on to senior military commands, policy leadership, or diplomatic positions in their respective countries. The exposure to diverse military doctrines and the network of high-level contacts formed at RCDS are invaluable.</p><p>Through joint education, RCDS helps establish shared doctrines and common ground — relationships that become important for future military operations, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic coordination.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/israel-launches-ground-incursion-in-gaza-city-amid-heavy-airstrikes-reports-1758001769982">Israel launches ground incursion in Gaza City amid heavy airstrikes: Reports</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The RCDS was founded in 1927, partly under the influence of Winston Churchill. Being invited to study there is a mark of distinction, signifying recognition by the UK government. Therefore, being excluded sends a strong diplomatic signal of disapproval.</p><p>RCDS trains the best British military officers and has long been a symbol of international cooperation. By excluding Israeli nationals from elite-level strategic training, the UK is not only making a diplomatic statement; it is shifting how military education is used as a tool of foreign policy.</p><p>The RCDS, a postgraduate institution part of the UK Defence Academy, offers strategic-level education in international security, defence, diplomacy, political, economic, and social strategy. It draws students from the UK and many allied or partner nations, including senior military and civilian leaders.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gaza-over-47-palestinians-killed-in-24-hours-idf-strikes-another-high-rise-in-gaza-1757862326434/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/gaza-over-47-palestinians-killed-in-24-hours-idf-strikes-another-high-rise-in-gaza-1757862326434/embed</a></p><h2>Rare policy change: Why UK decision to ban Israeli nationals from military college matters</h2><p>This is reportedly the first time since the RCDS was established that Israelis are being completely excluded, making the move historically significant.</p><p>While the UK is an ally of Israel, this move signals a break with traditional military education ties.</p><p>Though the actual number of Israeli students is said to be small, the symbolic impact is large.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-better-future-cannot-begin-until-hamas-is-gaza-city-bombing-escalates-after-marco-rubio-s-visit-to-jerusalem-1757990519964">'Better future cannot begin until Hamas is...': Gaza City bombing escalates after Marco Rubio's visit to Jerusalem</a></p><h2>How Israel responded to the decision</h2><p>Not only military officers but all Israeli applicants are affected by the ban, both military and civilian. Israeli students already enrolled will be allowed to finish their courses.<br>Israeli officials, including Major General Amir Baram, Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Defence, have strongly slammed the UK decision. Baram, himself an alumnus of the RCDS, called it discriminatory, a betrayal of an ally, a break with tradition, and dishonourable.</p><p>How the ban on Israelis will apply</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

UK has banned Israeli nationals from enrolling in the Royal College of Defence Studies over Israel's Gaza war actions. This is a rare policy shift with major diplomatic and defence implications. Here is why it matters



Britain has banned Israelis from enrolling in the Royal College of Defence Studies (RCDS) in London. The ban, announced by the UK’s Ministry of Defence, will be implemented from next year. Israel’s “ongoing actions and further escalation” in the military operation in Gaza is the reason given by the UK, which is calling for an immediate ceasefire, the return of hostages, and increased humanitarian aid. Here is why it matters. Israelis banned from RCDS: Why it matters The move could escalate diplomatic tensions and trigger retaliatory actions in academic or security cooperation, and damage UK-Israel trust in intelligence and defence sectors. Other countries may take this as a cue and adopt similar educational or defence restrictions on Israel in the context of its war in Gaza against Hamas. While it could start a political debate within the UK about the fairness and strategic logic, the decision could set a precedent for other countries to use educational bans as a means of political protest in response to Israeli military actions. Why RCDS is important The Royal College of Defence Studies plays a role in shaping global strategic thinking on international security, defence diplomacy, and geopolitical challenges, as many of its graduates go on to senior military commands, policy leadership, or diplomatic positions in their respective countries. The exposure to diverse military doctrines and the network of high-level contacts formed at RCDS are invaluable. Through joint education, RCDS helps establish shared doctrines and common ground — relationships that become important for future military operations, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic coordination. Also read: Israel launches ground incursion in Gaza City amid heavy airstrikes: Reports The RCDS was founded in 1927, partly under the influence of Winston Churchill. Being invited to study there is a mark of distinction, signifying recognition by the UK government. Therefore, being excluded sends a strong diplomatic signal of disapproval. RCDS trains the best British military officers and has long been a symbol of international cooperation. By excluding Israeli nationals from elite-level strategic training, the UK is not only making a diplomatic statement; it is shifting how military education is used as a tool of foreign policy. The RCDS, a postgraduate institution part of the UK Defence Academy, offers strategic-level education in international security, defence, diplomacy, political, economic, and social strategy. It draws students from the UK and many allied or partner nations, including senior military and civilian leaders. https://www.wionews.com/videos/gaza-over-47-palestinians-killed-in-24-hours-idf-strikes-another-high-rise-in-gaza-1757862326434/embed Rare policy change: Why UK decision to ban Israeli nationals from military college matters This is reportedly the first time since the RCDS was established that Israelis are being completely excluded, making the move historically significant. While the UK is an ally of Israel, this move signals a break with traditional military education ties. Though the actual number of Israeli students is said to be small, the symbolic impact is large. Also read: 'Better future cannot begin until Hamas is...': Gaza City bombing escalates after Marco Rubio's visit to Jerusalem How Israel responded to the decision Not only military officers but all Israeli applicants are affected by the ban, both military and civilian. Israeli students already enrolled will be allowed to finish their courses. Israeli officials, including Major General Amir Baram, Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Defence, have strongly slammed the UK decision. Baram, himself an alumnus of the RCDS, called it discriminatory, a betrayal of an ally, a break with tradition, and dishonourable. How the ban on Israelis will apply

<p>UK has banned Israeli nationals from enrolling in the Royal College of Defence Studies over Israel's Gaza war actions. This is a rare policy shift with major diplomatic and defence implications. Here is why it matters</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

UK just barred Israelis from enrolling in this prestigious defence college. Why it matters

<p>For nearly three decades, Indian software outsourcing helped grow its IT industry, sent tens of thousands of Indians on high‑skilled visas who went on to build new businesses and startups both in India and abroad, and made software engineering a “secure job” option for higher studies. But politico‑economic winds threaten to end this honeymoon, with the spectre of tariffs, visa and immigration policy curbs likely to disrupt their longstanding growth trajectory in the American market.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariff-war-trump-s-trade-adviser-says-india-s-tariffs-highest-costs-us-job-1757166949161/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariff-war-trump-s-trade-adviser-says-india-s-tariffs-highest-costs-us-job-1757166949161/embed</a></p><h2>How US policies may hurt India’s IT sector</h2><p>The negative trends include proposed “outsourcing taxes” under HIRE Act, tightening of visa regulations, and national security reviews under legislation such as the RESTRICT Act.</p><p>The US federal government—both in the executive branch and in Congress—is considering steps that could disrupt the traditional Indian IT business model that heavily relied on skilled visa workers, especially those on H‑1B visas.</p><h2>Taxation on outsourcing may become a reality in the US: The HIRE Act</h2><p>The proposed HIRE Act (Halting International Relocation of Employment Act), introduced by Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio, aims to impose a 25 per cent excise tax on payments US companies make to foreign persons for services that benefit US consumers.&nbsp;</p><p>The bill also prohibits tax deductions for such outsourcing payments and would channel the revenue into a so-called ‘Domestic Workforce Fund’ to finance retraining and apprenticeships. Industry experts believe that the cost burden under the HIRE Act could approach 46 per cent before state taxes.</p><h2>Talk of US visa rule tightening is making Indian IT sector jittery</h2><p>The US proposals include raising H‑1B visa fees by up to five times, enforcing one mandatory local hire for each H‑1B worker, and limiting H‑1B usage if firms use these visa holders for more than 15 per cent of their US workforce. These proposals are not yet law but are under serious discussion.</p><p>Indian IT firms are already reducing their dependence on H‑1B visas amid increasing complexity, cost, and regulatory uncertainty. As of June 2025, the 10 largest Indian IT services firms had about 14,652 workers in the US on H‑1B visas.&nbsp;</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/america-s-50-tariff-on-india-was-due-to-trump-s-personal-enmity-this-report-reveals-hidden-info-1756495589393">America's 50% tariff on India was due to Trump's 'personal' enmity? This report reveals hidden info</a></p><h2>How big is the US market for the Indian IT sector?</h2><p>India’s IT sector is now estimated at about $283 billion in total size. More than 60 per cent of the revenues of major Indian IT services companies comes from the US, which remains their largest market by far. Top five Indian IT firms—TCS, Infosys, HCLTech, Wipro and Tech Mahindra—generate about 50 to 65 per cent of their revenues from North America.&nbsp;</p><p>The US outsourcing tax (if passed in its current form) and visa tightening could erode their margins. Experts say the cost arbitrage advantage Indian IT firms have enjoyed is under threat. Many clients are reportedly delaying contracts, renegotiating pricing, or demanding changes in delivery models because of the perceived risk, according to reports</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-not-easy-big-deal-trump-admits-rift-in-india-us-ties-after-50-tariff-over-russian-energy-trade-1757703372604">‘Not easy, big deal’: Trump admits rift in India-US ties after 50% tariff over Russian energy trade</a></p><h2>RESTRICT Act, Russia-linked sanctions, and other headwinds</h2><p>Although visa policy is one major front, there are also national security and trade policy headwinds. Several Indian firms have been under scrutiny for allegedly supplying dual‑use or sensitive technology related to Russia. The RESTRICT Act empowers the US Commerce Secretary to investigate and potentially block tech‑related transactions involving entities from “foreign adversaries” if those transactions pose a risk to national security. While Indian firms are not the direct targets of this in many public reports, the law could indirectly affect them, especially if they are linked to supply chains involving sensitive ICT (Information and Communications Technology).</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-any-attempt-to-harm-ties-with-india-destined-to-fail-says-russia-amid-trump-s-tariff-threats-1757874260227">‘Any attempt to harm ties with India destined to fail,’ says Russia amid Trump’s tariff threats</a></p><h2>Indian IT firms are at a critical inflection point in US market</h2><p>The combination of this proposed outsourcing taxes, probable visa tightening, national security laws, and geopolitical tensions mean that the days of relatively easy growth in the US market may be coming to an end for Indian IT companies.&nbsp;</p><p>They will have to diversify away from heavy dependence on US clients, re‑negotiate business models with greater risk sharing. The honeymoon is probably over, or at least on borrowed time.<br>&nbsp;</p>

Indian IT giants face major headwinds in the US due to proposed curbs, laws and policy changes related to outsourcing, such as the HIRE Act, H‑1B visa curbs, and national security reviews under the RESTRICT Act. Will they weather this storm? Heres' what's in store for them



For nearly three decades, Indian software outsourcing helped grow its IT industry, sent tens of thousands of Indians on high‑skilled visas who went on to build new businesses and startups both in India and abroad, and made software engineering a “secure job” option for higher studies. But politico‑economic winds threaten to end this honeymoon, with the spectre of tariffs, visa and immigration policy curbs likely to disrupt their longstanding growth trajectory in the American market. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-s-tariff-war-trump-s-trade-adviser-says-india-s-tariffs-highest-costs-us-job-1757166949161/embed How US policies may hurt India’s IT sector The negative trends include proposed “outsourcing taxes” under HIRE Act, tightening of visa regulations, and national security reviews under legislation such as the RESTRICT Act. The US federal government—both in the executive branch and in Congress—is considering steps that could disrupt the traditional Indian IT business model that heavily relied on skilled visa workers, especially those on H‑1B visas. Taxation on outsourcing may become a reality in the US: The HIRE Act The proposed HIRE Act (Halting International Relocation of Employment Act), introduced by Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio, aims to impose a 25 per cent excise tax on payments US companies make to foreign persons for services that benefit US consumers. The bill also prohibits tax deductions for such outsourcing payments and would channel the revenue into a so-called ‘Domestic Workforce Fund’ to finance retraining and apprenticeships. Industry experts believe that the cost burden under the HIRE Act could approach 46 per cent before state taxes. Talk of US visa rule tightening is making Indian IT sector jittery The US proposals include raising H‑1B visa fees by up to five times, enforcing one mandatory local hire for each H‑1B worker, and limiting H‑1B usage if firms use these visa holders for more than 15 per cent of their US workforce. These proposals are not yet law but are under serious discussion. Indian IT firms are already reducing their dependence on H‑1B visas amid increasing complexity, cost, and regulatory uncertainty. As of June 2025, the 10 largest Indian IT services firms had about 14,652 workers in the US on H‑1B visas. Also read: America's 50% tariff on India was due to Trump's 'personal' enmity? This report reveals hidden info How big is the US market for the Indian IT sector? India’s IT sector is now estimated at about $283 billion in total size. More than 60 per cent of the revenues of major Indian IT services companies comes from the US, which remains their largest market by far. Top five Indian IT firms—TCS, Infosys, HCLTech, Wipro and Tech Mahindra—generate about 50 to 65 per cent of their revenues from North America. The US outsourcing tax (if passed in its current form) and visa tightening could erode their margins. Experts say the cost arbitrage advantage Indian IT firms have enjoyed is under threat. Many clients are reportedly delaying contracts, renegotiating pricing, or demanding changes in delivery models because of the perceived risk, according to reports Also read: ‘Not easy, big deal’: Trump admits rift in India-US ties after 50% tariff over Russian energy trade RESTRICT Act, Russia-linked sanctions, and other headwinds Although visa policy is one major front, there are also national security and trade policy headwinds. Several Indian firms have been under scrutiny for allegedly supplying dual‑use or sensitive technology related to Russia. The RESTRICT Act empowers the US Commerce Secretary to investigate and potentially block tech‑related transactions involving entities from “foreign adversaries” if those transactions pose a risk to national security. While Indian firms are not the direct targets of this in many public reports, the law could indirectly affect them, especially if they are linked to supply chains involving sensitive ICT (Information and Communications Technology). Also read: ‘Any attempt to harm ties with India destined to fail,’ says Russia amid Trump’s tariff threats Indian IT firms are at a critical inflection point in US market The combination of this proposed outsourcing taxes, probable visa tightening, national security laws, and geopolitical tensions mean that the days of relatively easy growth in the US market may be coming to an end for Indian IT companies. They will have to diversify away from heavy dependence on US clients, re‑negotiate business models with greater risk sharing. The honeymoon is probably over, or at least on borrowed time.

<p>Indian IT giants face major headwinds in the US due to proposed curbs, laws and policy changes related to outsourcing, such as the HIRE Act, H‑1B visa curbs, and national security reviews under the RESTRICT Act. Will they weather this storm? Heres' what's in store for them</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

US honeymoon over for Indian IT giants? How Trump tariff threats, visa curbs, RESTRICT Act, HIRE Act spell doom for software industry

<p>The Nepal protests earlier this month brought attention to Bitchat, a decentralised messaging app launched by Twitter founder Jack Dorsey. The new kid on the chat world and launched only in July 2025, Bitchat played a crucial role in the Gen Z youth-led protests against government corruption, wealth inequality, and the September 4 ban on 26 major social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, X, and YouTube. The ban, targeting platforms failing to register with the government, backfired spectacularly, fuelling outrage and leading to violent clashes that resulted in the resignation of the then prime minister KP Oli. Bitchat was used by the young protesters as internet access became unreliable.</p><h2>Protesters dodged internet curbs using WiFi and adopting apps like Bitchat</h2><p>To dodge government curbs, protesters used VPNs, whose sign-ups soared 6,000 within days, as well as 'offline apps' like Bitchat.<br>Bitchat saw explosive adoption — from about 3,300 downloads on September 4 to over 48,000 by September 9, up nearly 1,400 per cent. At the peak of the protests, Nepal became the largest user base of Bitchat worldwide, accounting for more than 38 per cent of global installs, according to reports in tech media.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-new-pm-vows-to-follow-protesters-demand-to-end-corruption-wion-1757854207357/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-new-pm-vows-to-follow-protesters-demand-to-end-corruption-wion-1757854207357/embed</a></p><h2>How Nepal Gen Z protesters used Bitchat</h2><p>The protesters reportedly used Bitchat — which does not need WiFi or internet access — to coordinate rallies, share real-time updates on police movements, and organise logistics. They discussed the political future of Nepal, including potential interim leaders like former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, who eventually took over. Bitchat was used along with other platforms like Discord, where over 145,000 users debated governance in so-called "digital parliaments."</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/what-is-discord-inside-the-chat-app-tied-to-nepals-gen-z-protests-and-charlie-kirk-case-1757753105495">What is Discord? Inside the chat app tied to Nepal’s Gen Z protests and Charlie Kirk case</a></p><h2>How the 'offline' capabilities of Bitchat work: A censorship-resistant design</h2><p>In practice, Bitchat became the 'freedom tech' for the movement, allowing communication to persist even as traditional social media networks were blocked or surveilled.&nbsp;</p><p>Highlighting this, Dorsey said that Bitchat is "there when you need it," while emphasising in his X post the spikes of installs for the app in Nepal and Indonesia, another recent protest hotspot.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-lord-ram-s-birthplace-limpiyadhura-map-oli-issues-first-response-after-ouster-amid-nepal-protests-continues-anti-india-stance-1757517194596">'Lord Ram's birthplace, Limpiyadhura map': Oli issues first response after ouster amid Nepal protests, continues 'anti-India stance'</a></p><h2>How does Bitchat work without WiFi or the internet?</h2><p>Bitchat is among the so-called ‘decentralised internet’ apps and can function entirely offline.</p><p>Its technology uses direct device-to-device communication as opposed to cellular networks, WiFi routers, or central servers.</p><p>This is could make it an effective tool during protests, natural disasters, and in remote areas when traditional connectivity fails.</p><p>There is no need for phone numbers, email, SIM cards, accounts, or personal data; users are anonymous by default.<br>Here is a further breakdown on the technology of Bitchat:</p><h2>How Bluetooth activation and discovery of Bitchat works</h2><p>Bitchat works on Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), a power-efficient version of Bluetooth designed for a typical range of 10–100 metres.&nbsp;</p><p>It can connect with low battery drain.&nbsp;</p><p>Bitchat automatically connects with fellow users and forms peer-to-peer (P2P) links without needing the internet.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/why-nepal-s-gen-z-will-financially-suffer-even-more-after-the-september-2025-revolution-1757584319437">Why Nepal’s Gen Z will financially suffer even more after the September 2025 revolution</a></p><h2>Mesh networking for message relay in Bitchat</h2><p>Bitchat uses "mesh networks," in which devices act as nodes in a web-like structure.&nbsp;</p><p>Messages first go to nearby devices within BLE range and are then relayed or "hopped" through intermediate devices running Bitchat.</p><p>This helps extend the range of messages to 300 metres or more in dense crowds, creating a dynamic, self-healing network. If one path fails, the message reroutes through others. Inspired by Bitcoin's P2P model and the Nostr protocol for censorship resistance, Bitchat is decentralised, meaning no single device controls it.</p><h2>Bitchat's 'store and forward' method of message delivery&nbsp;</h2><p>The "store-and-forward" model means messages in Bitchat aren't sent in real-time if the recipient is offline or out of range.</p><p>The message is stored encrypted on intermediate devices until the recipient comes online or within range.&nbsp;</p><p>Once delivered, messages can auto-delete (ephemeral by default) to enhance privacy.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nepal-protest-death-toll-mounts-to-51-and-more-than-12-500-prisoners-are-still-on-the-run-police-1757662440026">Nepal protest death toll mounts to 51 and more than 12,500 prisoners are still on the run: Police</a></p><h2>Encryption and security of Bitchat</h2><p>Every message undergoes end-to-end (E2E) encryption before transmission. Only the sender and recipient hold the keys and no one else, including relays, can read it.&nbsp;</p><p>Features like password-protected "rooms" - which are group chats with hashtags - &nbsp;add layers. A "panic mode", &nbsp;allowing triple-tap to wipe data, protects users in high-risk situations.&nbsp;</p><p>There's no data collection, tracking, or server involvement, reducing surveillance risks, according to the makers of the app.</p><p>In essence, Bitchat turns smartphones into local ad-hoc networks, like how radios or walkie-talkies are used for communication, while equipped with modern encryption and scalability.&nbsp;</p><p>While not a full replacement for social media, it works best in hyper-local, resilient communication when density of users is high.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Bitchat, a brand new decentralised chat app, played a key role in Nepal's Gen Z-led protests by enabling secure, offline communication amid internet blackouts and social media bans. It allowed protesters to stay connected without WiFi, SIM cards, or servers. But how?

The Nepal protests earlier this month brought attention to Bitchat, a decentralised messaging app launched by Twitter founder Jack Dorsey. The new kid on the chat world and launched only in July 2025, Bitchat played a crucial role in the Gen Z youth-led protests against government corruption, wealth inequality, and the September 4 ban on 26 major social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, X, and YouTube. The ban, targeting platforms failing to register with the government, backfired spectacularly, fuelling outrage and leading to violent clashes that resulted in the resignation of the then prime minister KP Oli. Bitchat was used by the young protesters as internet access became unreliable. Protesters dodged internet curbs using WiFi and adopting apps like Bitchat To dodge government curbs, protesters used VPNs, whose sign-ups soared 6,000 within days, as well as 'offline apps' like Bitchat. Bitchat saw explosive adoption — from about 3,300 downloads on September 4 to over 48,000 by September 9, up nearly 1,400 per cent. At the peak of the protests, Nepal became the largest user base of Bitchat worldwide, accounting for more than 38 per cent of global installs, according to reports in tech media. https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-new-pm-vows-to-follow-protesters-demand-to-end-corruption-wion-1757854207357/embed How Nepal Gen Z protesters used Bitchat The protesters reportedly used Bitchat — which does not need WiFi or internet access — to coordinate rallies, share real-time updates on police movements, and organise logistics. They discussed the political future of Nepal, including potential interim leaders like former Chief Justice Sushila Karki, who eventually took over. Bitchat was used along with other platforms like Discord, where over 145,000 users debated governance in so-called "digital parliaments." Also read: What is Discord? Inside the chat app tied to Nepal’s Gen Z protests and Charlie Kirk case How the 'offline' capabilities of Bitchat work: A censorship-resistant design In practice, Bitchat became the 'freedom tech' for the movement, allowing communication to persist even as traditional social media networks were blocked or surveilled. Highlighting this, Dorsey said that Bitchat is "there when you need it," while emphasising in his X post the spikes of installs for the app in Nepal and Indonesia, another recent protest hotspot. Also read: 'Lord Ram's birthplace, Limpiyadhura map': Oli issues first response after ouster amid Nepal protests, continues 'anti-India stance' How does Bitchat work without WiFi or the internet? Bitchat is among the so-called ‘decentralised internet’ apps and can function entirely offline. Its technology uses direct device-to-device communication as opposed to cellular networks, WiFi routers, or central servers. This is could make it an effective tool during protests, natural disasters, and in remote areas when traditional connectivity fails. There is no need for phone numbers, email, SIM cards, accounts, or personal data; users are anonymous by default. Here is a further breakdown on the technology of Bitchat: How Bluetooth activation and discovery of Bitchat works Bitchat works on Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), a power-efficient version of Bluetooth designed for a typical range of 10–100 metres. It can connect with low battery drain. Bitchat automatically connects with fellow users and forms peer-to-peer (P2P) links without needing the internet. Also read: Why Nepal’s Gen Z will financially suffer even more after the September 2025 revolution Mesh networking for message relay in Bitchat Bitchat uses "mesh networks," in which devices act as nodes in a web-like structure. Messages first go to nearby devices within BLE range and are then relayed or "hopped" through intermediate devices running Bitchat. This helps extend the range of messages to 300 metres or more in dense crowds, creating a dynamic, self-healing network. If one path fails, the message reroutes through others. Inspired by Bitcoin's P2P model and the Nostr protocol for censorship resistance, Bitchat is decentralised, meaning no single device controls it. Bitchat's 'store and forward' method of message delivery The "store-and-forward" model means messages in Bitchat aren't sent in real-time if the recipient is offline or out of range. The message is stored encrypted on intermediate devices until the recipient comes online or within range. Once delivered, messages can auto-delete (ephemeral by default) to enhance privacy. Also read: Nepal protest death toll mounts to 51 and more than 12,500 prisoners are still on the run: Police Encryption and security of Bitchat Every message undergoes end-to-end (E2E) encryption before transmission. Only the sender and recipient hold the keys and no one else, including relays, can read it. Features like password-protected "rooms" - which are group chats with hashtags - add layers. A "panic mode", allowing triple-tap to wipe data, protects users in high-risk situations. There's no data collection, tracking, or server involvement, reducing surveillance risks, according to the makers of the app. In essence, Bitchat turns smartphones into local ad-hoc networks, like how radios or walkie-talkies are used for communication, while equipped with modern encryption and scalability. While not a full replacement for social media, it works best in hyper-local, resilient communication when density of users is high.

<p>Bitchat, a brand new decentralised chat app, played a key role in Nepal's Gen Z-led protests by enabling secure, offline communication amid internet blackouts and social media bans. It allowed protesters to stay connected without WiFi, SIM cards, or servers. But how?</p>

Bitchat in Nepal protests: App from Twitter founder Dorsey works without internet, helped Gen Z dodge social media ban, blackouts. How does it work?

<p>The shocking daylight murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk is being blamed by several leaders and online commentators on extreme ‘woke’ ideologies. With or without using the terms woke or wokism, US President Donald Trump criticised the ‘radical left’. What is woke and what is wokism? Will Kirk’s killing be a wake-up call that, when taken to extremes and in the wrong hands, even progressive ideas associated with woke culture could become damaging — or deadly? Will wokism die down, given the growing backlash? Here is what you should know.</p><h2>The history of "Woke" and "Wokism"</h2><p>The term woke has its roots in African American Vernacular English, where it originally meant being alert to racial injustice.&nbsp;</p><p>Emerging in the early 20th century, it carried a sense of vigilance against systemic oppression. By the 2010s, &nbsp;the term ‘woke’ entered mainstream usage, propelled by the rise of social media and the Black Lives Matter movement, which began in 2013 following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the killing of Black teenager Trayvon Martin. Initially, woke was a call to awareness about systemic racism and social inequalities, particularly in the United States.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/no-name-or-location-authorities-release-new-video-of-person-of-interest-escaping-in-charlie-kirk-shooting-site-1757650437390">No name or location: Authorities release new video of person of interest escaping Charlie Kirk shooting site</a></p><h2>Social media popularised the term ‘woke’</h2><p>By the mid-2010s, the term’s meaning broadened significantly. It came to encompass a wide range of progressive causes beyond race, including but not limited to gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, environmentalism, and economic justice.</p><p>The popularity of the terms woke and wokism was fuelled by social media platforms like Twitter (later X) and Instagram, where activism became highly visible.</p><h2>Wokism became a derogatory term to describe left-of-centre ideologies and activism</h2><p>A parallel stream of criticism arose about woke activism, alleging that it was often performative — more about appearances than substantive change. The term became a cultural shorthand for progressive awareness, but also a lightning rod for backlash, being associated with political correctness and perceived oversensitivity.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/charlie-kirk-killing-conspiracy-theories-flood-internet-epstein-letter-diversion-tactic-strange-how-they-didn-t-find-the-shooter-1757661072275">Charlie Kirk killing conspiracy theories flood internet: Epstein 'letter' diversion tactic? 'Strange how they didn't find the shooter'</a></p><p>In the late 2010s and early 2020s, wokism was often used pejoratively — to describe an excessive or dogmatic adherence to woke ideology. Wokism was linked to the so-called ‘cancel culture’, which involved the public shaming or boycotting of individuals or entities deemed insufficiently progressive. It was often used to criticise those engaged in identity politics, including issues of race and gender.</p><h2>Wokism in institutions targeted by right-wing critics</h2><p>Often, wokism was blamed for what critics saw as ‘institutional overreach’ — the perceived integration of progressive ideals into academia, media, and corporations, sometimes viewed as stifling free speech or undermining meritocracy.</p><p>Wokism is now more famous for the backlash it faces than for any specific figure associated with it. Critics see wokism as fostering social division, intolerance of dissent, and a culture of virtue-signalling — where companies or individuals adopt progressive stances primarily for public approval rather than genuine commitment.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/charlie-kirk-shinzo-abe-benazir-bhutto-king-birendra-and-more-political-assassinations-and-killings-that-shocked-the-world-in-21st-century-1757654815766">Charlie Kirk, Shinzo Abe, Benazir Bhutto, King Birendra and more: Political assassinations and killings that shocked the World in 21st Century</a></p><h2>Will we see the end of wokism, or will it revive?</h2><p>Social movements tend to follow cycles — often dying out or evolving into new forms. Wokism, in its current form, may be declining due to cultural fatigue and backlash.</p><p>The public is increasingly critical of the more extreme elements of wokism, such as language policing (for example, the he/she/they/them debate over gender self-identification) or perceived corporate pandering. A survey by Pew Research showed declining support among moderates and independents for certain progressive stances viewed as divisive.</p><p>There are anti-woke or post-woke voices gaining ground both on social media and offline. These critics include conservatives and progressives alike.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/charlie-kirk-shooting-enhanced-images-video-of-suspect-released-authorities-urge-public-s-help-1757660716878/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/charlie-kirk-shooting-enhanced-images-video-of-suspect-released-authorities-urge-public-s-help-1757660716878/embed</a></p><p>Much like the decline of the 1960s counterculture, wokism may also fade, but the underlying causes — civil rights, gender equality, and environmentalism — will continue to shape future activism and policy.</p><p>Similarly, wokism may splinter or rebrand into more pragmatic, less ideologically rigid forms.</p><p>Rather than a complete end or dramatic revival, what’s more likely is a recalibration. The term wokism itself may lose prominence as critics and supporters move on to new fronts, but the broader fight for social justice and equality will continue.</p>

Charlie Kirk’s killing has sparked debate over extreme woke ideologies. Once a call for justice, “woke” now faces backlash for perceived excesses. Critics argue wokism divides society. Here is what you should know



The shocking daylight murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk is being blamed by several leaders and online commentators on extreme ‘woke’ ideologies. With or without using the terms woke or wokism, US President Donald Trump criticised the ‘radical left’. What is woke and what is wokism? Will Kirk’s killing be a wake-up call that, when taken to extremes and in the wrong hands, even progressive ideas associated with woke culture could become damaging — or deadly? Will wokism die down, given the growing backlash? Here is what you should know. The history of "Woke" and "Wokism" The term woke has its roots in African American Vernacular English, where it originally meant being alert to racial injustice. Emerging in the early 20th century, it carried a sense of vigilance against systemic oppression. By the 2010s, the term ‘woke’ entered mainstream usage, propelled by the rise of social media and the Black Lives Matter movement, which began in 2013 following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the killing of Black teenager Trayvon Martin. Initially, woke was a call to awareness about systemic racism and social inequalities, particularly in the United States. Also read: No name or location: Authorities release new video of person of interest escaping Charlie Kirk shooting site Social media popularised the term ‘woke’ By the mid-2010s, the term’s meaning broadened significantly. It came to encompass a wide range of progressive causes beyond race, including but not limited to gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, environmentalism, and economic justice. The popularity of the terms woke and wokism was fuelled by social media platforms like Twitter (later X) and Instagram, where activism became highly visible. Wokism became a derogatory term to describe left-of-centre ideologies and activism A parallel stream of criticism arose about woke activism, alleging that it was often performative — more about appearances than substantive change. The term became a cultural shorthand for progressive awareness, but also a lightning rod for backlash, being associated with political correctness and perceived oversensitivity. Also read: Charlie Kirk killing conspiracy theories flood internet: Epstein 'letter' diversion tactic? 'Strange how they didn't find the shooter' In the late 2010s and early 2020s, wokism was often used pejoratively — to describe an excessive or dogmatic adherence to woke ideology. Wokism was linked to the so-called ‘cancel culture’, which involved the public shaming or boycotting of individuals or entities deemed insufficiently progressive. It was often used to criticise those engaged in identity politics, including issues of race and gender. Wokism in institutions targeted by right-wing critics Often, wokism was blamed for what critics saw as ‘institutional overreach’ — the perceived integration of progressive ideals into academia, media, and corporations, sometimes viewed as stifling free speech or undermining meritocracy. Wokism is now more famous for the backlash it faces than for any specific figure associated with it. Critics see wokism as fostering social division, intolerance of dissent, and a culture of virtue-signalling — where companies or individuals adopt progressive stances primarily for public approval rather than genuine commitment. Also read: Charlie Kirk, Shinzo Abe, Benazir Bhutto, King Birendra and more: Political assassinations and killings that shocked the World in 21st Century Will we see the end of wokism, or will it revive? Social movements tend to follow cycles — often dying out or evolving into new forms. Wokism, in its current form, may be declining due to cultural fatigue and backlash. The public is increasingly critical of the more extreme elements of wokism, such as language policing (for example, the he/she/they/them debate over gender self-identification) or perceived corporate pandering. A survey by Pew Research showed declining support among moderates and independents for certain progressive stances viewed as divisive. There are anti-woke or post-woke voices gaining ground both on social media and offline. These critics include conservatives and progressives alike. https://www.wionews.com/videos/charlie-kirk-shooting-enhanced-images-video-of-suspect-released-authorities-urge-public-s-help-1757660716878/embed Much like the decline of the 1960s counterculture, wokism may also fade, but the underlying causes — civil rights, gender equality, and environmentalism — will continue to shape future activism and policy. Similarly, wokism may splinter or rebrand into more pragmatic, less ideologically rigid forms. Rather than a complete end or dramatic revival, what’s more likely is a recalibration. The term wokism itself may lose prominence as critics and supporters move on to new fronts, but the broader fight for social justice and equality will continue.

<p>Charlie Kirk’s killing has sparked debate over extreme woke ideologies. Once a call for justice, “woke” now faces backlash for perceived excesses. Critics argue wokism divides society. Here is what you should know</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Charlie Kirk’s killing is being blamed on extreme ‘woke’ ideologies. What is woke and wokism?

<p>The new One World Trade Center officially opened on 3 November 2014 at the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Lower Manhattan, New York City. For many supporters, rebuilding on the exact spot where the World Trade Center’s twin towers once stood is a symbol of resilience, revival, and hope. However, some critics questioned the safety and emotional sensitivity of constructing another towering structure on what remains a high-profile target. Taller than the original twin towers, One World Trade Center is the tallest building in the United States as well as the Western Hemisphere. But how does the US ensure the safety of this site?</p><h2>One World Trade Center: A new design for a new era</h2><p>Also known as One WTC or the Freedom Tower, the new skyscraper does not replicate the design of the original twin towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were both 110-storey buildings identical in appearance. One World Trade Center is a distinct, singular building within a larger complex that includes other towers such as 2 WTC, 3 WTC, 4 WTC, and 7 WTC, each with unique architectural designs and purposes.</p><p>One World Trade Center stands at 1,776 feet, &nbsp;including its spire, a symbolic reference to the year 1776, when the US Declaration of Independence was signed.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/revealed-trump-familys-secret-crypto-deal-with-terror-linked-pakistan-9073275/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/revealed-trump-familys-secret-crypto-deal-with-terror-linked-pakistan-9073275/embed</a></p><h2>After 9/11 attacks on WTC, why did the US rebuild on the same site?</h2><p>Rebuilding the World Trade Center on the same site was a decision grounded in symbolism. Supporters described it as an act of defiance against terrorism and a message of recovery, reinforcing that the area would continue to serve as a hub of international trade and finance.</p><p>The complex has since helped revitalise Lower Manhattan, attracting major companies like Condé Nast, which became one of the first tenants in 2014.</p><p>Alongside the office towers, the site features the National September 11 Memorial &amp; Museum, dedicated to honouring the 2,977 victims of 9/11 attacks. The twin reflecting pools, situated on the original footprints of the North and South Towers, serve as solemn reminders of the tragedy in 2001.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/remembering-9-11-heroes-roselle-the-guide-dog-who-led-a-blind-man-down-78-floors-1757560386032">Remembering 9/11 heroes: Roselle, the guide dog who led a blind man down 78 floors</a></p><h2>Critics of One World Trade Center cited security and sensitivity concerns</h2><p>Despite its symbolic significance, the decision to rebuild on the original site faced some resistance. Critics felt it was emotionally inappropriate to construct commercial buildings where thousands perished. There were calls for the entire area to be reserved as a memorial space.</p><p>Critics also expressed concerns about security, as the World Trade Center remains a symbolic target for potential terrorist activity. Past incidents, such as a teen sneaking past security in 2014 to climb One WTC and base jumpers breaching perimeter defences, heightened anxieties about the building’s vulnerability.</p><h2>Rebuilding World Trade Center was a costly affair</h2><p>The entire rebuilding process took nearly 15 years and cost an estimated $4 billion for One World Trade Center alone. The project faced multiple delays due to political, financial, and design disagreements. Some architects and community members initially advocated for rebuilding the original twin towers or for a less ambitious design to avoid turning the site into another high-profile target.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/9-11-anniversary-justice-delayed-justice-denied-how-the-us-failed-to-convict-any-of-the-suspects-caught-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-status-us-terrorism-1757570930703">9/11 anniversary: Justice delayed, justice denied? How the US failed to convict or sentence any of the suspects caught after 24 years</a></p><h2>Avoiding another attack: How is the New World Trade Center secured?</h2><p>Given the tragic history and high-profile nature of the site, multi-layered security has been integrated into both the building's structure and its daily operations. Much of the detailed strategy remains classified, but several measures are publicly known:</p><p>Structural and architectural security includes a fortified base: The building features an 85-foot-tall reinforced concrete podium with no windows on the lower floors, designed to withstand vehicle-borne explosives.<br>Blast-resistant materials are used. The building’s glass façade and steel frame are engineered to resist significant blast forces.<br>Ultra-high-strength concrete was used, with the core having materials significantly stronger than those in conventional skyscrapers.<br>Life-safety systems, such as sprinklers, emergency lighting, and communications, are duplicated to maintain functionality in emergencies.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/9-11-attack-anniversary-how-dr-shakeel-afridi-who-helped-us-kill-osama-bin-laden-was-hunted-down-and-jailed-by-pakistan-1757575721256">9/11 attack anniversary: How Dr Shakeel Afridi, who helped US kill Osama Bin Laden, was hunted down, jailed by Pakistan</a></p><h2>World Trade Center has a constant federal and state law enforcement presence</h2><p>New York Police Department (NYPD) has dedicated World Trade Center Command that patrols the site 24/7, with support from counterterrorism units.</p><p>Federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and &nbsp;Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) collaborate with local authorities to monitor threats and share intelligence.</p><p>Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), a multi-agency team led by the FBI and including NYPD officers, focuses on preempting terrorist activity.</p><p>The Port Authority Police Department (PAPD), which is responsible for security at the WTC complex, has increased staff and developed specialised units focused on infrastructure protection.</p><h2>High-tech surveillance ensures saftey of One World Trade Center</h2><p>The area is equipped with an extensive network of CCTV cameras, motion detectors and licence plate readers, integrated with the NYPD’s Domain Awareness System for real-time monitoring. Access control is managed through strict ID checks and security screenings are mandatory for visitors and employees.<br>Cybersecurity and drone defence are in place, with advanced systems monitoring cyber threats and detecting unauthorised aerial drones.</p><h2>One World Trade Center emergency preparedness: Always ready for eventualities</h2><p>To ensure evacuation readiness, One WTC has 73 elevators, many of which can be used by first responders and for high-speed evacuations. Fireproofing, smoke control systems, and emergency lighting are built to modern high-rise standards.<br>Regular drills are conducted by NYPD, PAPD, and other agencies, simulating potential incidents to test readiness.<br>The Port Authority collaborates with private security firms hired by individual tenants of the buildings, in order to ensure alignment with the broader security strategy.<br>To ensure constant public vigilance, Campaigns such as “If You See Something, Say Something” are conducted, encouraging public awareness and cooperation in maintaining site safety.</p><h2>One World Trade Center: More than a skyscraper</h2><p>One World Trade Center represents more than just a skyscraper — it stands as a monument to those lost, a declaration of resilience, and a key component in New York’s continued evolution. While security concerns remain, the building incorporates some of the most advanced safety and anti-terrorism measures ever deployed in a civilian structure.</p><p>Whether seen as a bold act of renewal or a potentially risky symbol, the rebuilt World Trade Center reflects the complex legacy of 9/11, one of loss, memory, strength, and enduring hope.<br>&nbsp;</p>

One World Trade Center, built on the original World Trade Center site destroyed by the 9/11 terror attack, is a symbol of American resilience and hope. How does the 1,776-foot skyscraper ensure its safety against another potential attack?

The new One World Trade Center officially opened on 3 November 2014 at the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Lower Manhattan, New York City. For many supporters, rebuilding on the exact spot where the World Trade Center’s twin towers once stood is a symbol of resilience, revival, and hope. However, some critics questioned the safety and emotional sensitivity of constructing another towering structure on what remains a high-profile target. Taller than the original twin towers, One World Trade Center is the tallest building in the United States as well as the Western Hemisphere. But how does the US ensure the safety of this site? One World Trade Center: A new design for a new era Also known as One WTC or the Freedom Tower, the new skyscraper does not replicate the design of the original twin towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were both 110-storey buildings identical in appearance. One World Trade Center is a distinct, singular building within a larger complex that includes other towers such as 2 WTC, 3 WTC, 4 WTC, and 7 WTC, each with unique architectural designs and purposes. One World Trade Center stands at 1,776 feet, including its spire, a symbolic reference to the year 1776, when the US Declaration of Independence was signed. https://www.wionews.com/videos/revealed-trump-familys-secret-crypto-deal-with-terror-linked-pakistan-9073275/embed After 9/11 attacks on WTC, why did the US rebuild on the same site? Rebuilding the World Trade Center on the same site was a decision grounded in symbolism. Supporters described it as an act of defiance against terrorism and a message of recovery, reinforcing that the area would continue to serve as a hub of international trade and finance. The complex has since helped revitalise Lower Manhattan, attracting major companies like Condé Nast, which became one of the first tenants in 2014. Alongside the office towers, the site features the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, dedicated to honouring the 2,977 victims of 9/11 attacks. The twin reflecting pools, situated on the original footprints of the North and South Towers, serve as solemn reminders of the tragedy in 2001. Also read: Remembering 9/11 heroes: Roselle, the guide dog who led a blind man down 78 floors Critics of One World Trade Center cited security and sensitivity concerns Despite its symbolic significance, the decision to rebuild on the original site faced some resistance. Critics felt it was emotionally inappropriate to construct commercial buildings where thousands perished. There were calls for the entire area to be reserved as a memorial space. Critics also expressed concerns about security, as the World Trade Center remains a symbolic target for potential terrorist activity. Past incidents, such as a teen sneaking past security in 2014 to climb One WTC and base jumpers breaching perimeter defences, heightened anxieties about the building’s vulnerability. Rebuilding World Trade Center was a costly affair The entire rebuilding process took nearly 15 years and cost an estimated $4 billion for One World Trade Center alone. The project faced multiple delays due to political, financial, and design disagreements. Some architects and community members initially advocated for rebuilding the original twin towers or for a less ambitious design to avoid turning the site into another high-profile target. Also read: 9/11 anniversary: Justice delayed, justice denied? How the US failed to convict or sentence any of the suspects caught after 24 years Avoiding another attack: How is the New World Trade Center secured? Given the tragic history and high-profile nature of the site, multi-layered security has been integrated into both the building's structure and its daily operations. Much of the detailed strategy remains classified, but several measures are publicly known: Structural and architectural security includes a fortified base: The building features an 85-foot-tall reinforced concrete podium with no windows on the lower floors, designed to withstand vehicle-borne explosives. Blast-resistant materials are used. The building’s glass façade and steel frame are engineered to resist significant blast forces. Ultra-high-strength concrete was used, with the core having materials significantly stronger than those in conventional skyscrapers. Life-safety systems, such as sprinklers, emergency lighting, and communications, are duplicated to maintain functionality in emergencies. Also read: 9/11 attack anniversary: How Dr Shakeel Afridi, who helped US kill Osama Bin Laden, was hunted down, jailed by Pakistan World Trade Center has a constant federal and state law enforcement presence New York Police Department (NYPD) has dedicated World Trade Center Command that patrols the site 24/7, with support from counterterrorism units. Federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) collaborate with local authorities to monitor threats and share intelligence. Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), a multi-agency team led by the FBI and including NYPD officers, focuses on preempting terrorist activity. The Port Authority Police Department (PAPD), which is responsible for security at the WTC complex, has increased staff and developed specialised units focused on infrastructure protection. High-tech surveillance ensures saftey of One World Trade Center The area is equipped with an extensive network of CCTV cameras, motion detectors and licence plate readers, integrated with the NYPD’s Domain Awareness System for real-time monitoring. Access control is managed through strict ID checks and security screenings are mandatory for visitors and employees. Cybersecurity and drone defence are in place, with advanced systems monitoring cyber threats and detecting unauthorised aerial drones. One World Trade Center emergency preparedness: Always ready for eventualities To ensure evacuation readiness, One WTC has 73 elevators, many of which can be used by first responders and for high-speed evacuations. Fireproofing, smoke control systems, and emergency lighting are built to modern high-rise standards. Regular drills are conducted by NYPD, PAPD, and other agencies, simulating potential incidents to test readiness. The Port Authority collaborates with private security firms hired by individual tenants of the buildings, in order to ensure alignment with the broader security strategy. To ensure constant public vigilance, Campaigns such as “If You See Something, Say Something” are conducted, encouraging public awareness and cooperation in maintaining site safety. One World Trade Center: More than a skyscraper One World Trade Center represents more than just a skyscraper — it stands as a monument to those lost, a declaration of resilience, and a key component in New York’s continued evolution. While security concerns remain, the building incorporates some of the most advanced safety and anti-terrorism measures ever deployed in a civilian structure. Whether seen as a bold act of renewal or a potentially risky symbol, the rebuilt World Trade Center reflects the complex legacy of 9/11, one of loss, memory, strength, and enduring hope.

<p>One World Trade Center, built on the original World Trade Center site destroyed by the 9/11 terror attack, is a symbol of American resilience and hope. How does the 1,776-foot skyscraper ensure its safety against another potential attack?</p>

9/11: Why did the US rebuild the One World Trade Center at the same site where terrorists destroyed the Twin Towers? How safe is it?

<p>Another anniversary of 9/11 is here, but the United States has yet to convict or sentence any of those arrested alive over links to the horrific terror attacks of 2001. The 11 September 2001 terror attacks left an estimated 2,996 people dead. Of these, 2,977 were civilians and first responders, including people in the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and the passengers and crew aboard the hijacked planes. The 19 terrorists who hijacked four planes died while carrying out the dastardly attacks.</p><h2>How the 9/11 terror attack unfolded&nbsp;</h2><p>American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, while United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower. American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers bravely fought the hijackers. The hijackers of this plane were believed to be targeting either the White House or the Capitol.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/lashkar-operative-in-charge-of-lets-headquarters-in-muridke-neutralised-9060744//embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/lashkar-operative-in-charge-of-lets-headquarters-in-muridke-neutralised-9060744//embed</a></p><h2>What is the status of the suspects caught alive after the 9/11 attacks?</h2><p>As the perpetrators died in the terror attacks, the investigation and arrests focused on the conspirators, planners, and facilitators. Yet, nearly a quarter-century later, there have been no convictions or sentencing. The man known as the mastermind of the attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay since 2006, and his trial has been continuing sporadically for over a decade. There has never been any official talk of him being released. However, plea deals were discussed that might have ruled out the death penalty for him.</p><p>9/11 terror attack legal quandary: Nobody was convicted or sentenced to death</p><p>Despite the United States having the death penalty in several states and within the military commission system, no individuals have been convicted or sentenced to death for their roles in the 11 September 2001 attacks.&nbsp;<br>The attacks were carried out by the al-Qaeda terror group, led by Osama Bin Laden, who was killed in Pakistan in 2011 in a US Marines raid.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/nasa-shares-haunting-image-of-911-attacks-captured-from-space-758080">NASA shares haunting image of 9/11 attacks captured from space</a></p><h2>Who are the five key people charged with orchestrating the attack?</h2><p>Five men have been charged with terrorism offences related to 9/11. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the alleged mastermind of the attacks. Walid bin Attash is accused of training the hijackers. Mustafa al-Hawsawi is accused of financing the operation. Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is accused of facilitating logistics and money transfers. Ramzi bin al-Shibh is accused of acting as a liaison between the hijackers and al-Qaeda leadership. All five are being tried before military commissions at Guantanamo Bay.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/remembering-9-11-heroes-roselle-the-guide-dog-who-led-a-blind-man-down-78-floors-1757560386032/amp">Remembering 9/11 heroes: Roselle, the guide dog who led a blind man down 78 floors</a></p><h2>The controversial plea agreement of the 9/11 mastermind</h2><p>There was widespread controversy in July 2024, when a plea agreement was proposed that would have allowed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi to plead guilty in exchange for life sentences without parole, thereby avoiding the death penalty.&nbsp;<br>Following public and political backlash, the then US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin rescinded the deal.&nbsp;<br>In July 2025, a federal appeals court ruled that the plea agreements were not binding, thereby reinstating the possibility of the death penalty.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/who-is-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-the-alleged-mastermind-of-911-attacks-wholl-avoid-death-penalty-746130">Who is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11 attacks who'll avoid death penalty?</a></p><h2>What is the current status of the 9/11 terror attack suspects?</h2><p>At the time of writing this, none of the accused have been convicted or sentenced, even after 24 years.&nbsp;<br>The trials have been marred by frequent delays, legal wrangling, and disputes over evidence, particularly material obtained under torture.&nbsp;<br>There have also been concerns about human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay. Many hearings have been cancelled or rescheduled due to changes in legal teams, mental competency issues, and disputes over classified evidence.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-admin-launches-review-of-us-troops-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-timeline-from-9-11-attack-to-end-of-20-year-war-wion-explains-1747825811137">Trump admin launches review of US troops' withdrawal from Afghanistan: Timeline from 9/11 attack to end of '20-year-war' | WION Explains</a></p><h2>Justice delayed, justice denied: Why the 9/11 case is a stain on US legal history</h2><p>The 9/11 case is arguably one of the most prolonged and controversial in US legal history.&nbsp;<br>Many families of victims are frustrated and disillusioned by the lack of justice.&nbsp;<br>The United States used the 9/11 attacks as a justification to invade Afghanistan in 2001, but withdrew in 2021. The Taliban, originally ousted as a result of that invasion, returned to power amid the chaotic American exit.&nbsp;<br>The global anti-terror sentiment after 9/11 was also used to invade Iraq under the false pretext that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He was captured, tried, and executed in 2006, even though Iraq had no role in the 9/11 attacks.&nbsp;<br>In contrast, none of those captured alive for direct links to the 9/11 attacks have been convicted, executed, or even sentenced.&nbsp;<br>This remains a historical irony and an enduring failure of the US approach to justice and counterterrorism.<br>&nbsp;</p>

24 years after the 9/11 terror attacks, no detained suspect has been convicted or sentenced despite ongoing trials at Guantanamo Bay. Victim families are frustrated and justice still unserved as it remains among the longest terror cases in the US 

Another anniversary of 9/11 is here, but the United States has yet to convict or sentence any of those arrested alive over links to the horrific terror attacks of 2001. The 11 September 2001 terror attacks left an estimated 2,996 people dead. Of these, 2,977 were civilians and first responders, including people in the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and the passengers and crew aboard the hijacked planes. The 19 terrorists who hijacked four planes died while carrying out the dastardly attacks. How the 9/11 terror attack unfolded American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, while United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower. American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers bravely fought the hijackers. The hijackers of this plane were believed to be targeting either the White House or the Capitol. https://www.wionews.com/videos/lashkar-operative-in-charge-of-lets-headquarters-in-muridke-neutralised-9060744//embed What is the status of the suspects caught alive after the 9/11 attacks? As the perpetrators died in the terror attacks, the investigation and arrests focused on the conspirators, planners, and facilitators. Yet, nearly a quarter-century later, there have been no convictions or sentencing. The man known as the mastermind of the attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay since 2006, and his trial has been continuing sporadically for over a decade. There has never been any official talk of him being released. However, plea deals were discussed that might have ruled out the death penalty for him. 9/11 terror attack legal quandary: Nobody was convicted or sentenced to death Despite the United States having the death penalty in several states and within the military commission system, no individuals have been convicted or sentenced to death for their roles in the 11 September 2001 attacks. The attacks were carried out by the al-Qaeda terror group, led by Osama Bin Laden, who was killed in Pakistan in 2011 in a US Marines raid. Also read: NASA shares haunting image of 9/11 attacks captured from space Who are the five key people charged with orchestrating the attack? Five men have been charged with terrorism offences related to 9/11. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the alleged mastermind of the attacks. Walid bin Attash is accused of training the hijackers. Mustafa al-Hawsawi is accused of financing the operation. Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is accused of facilitating logistics and money transfers. Ramzi bin al-Shibh is accused of acting as a liaison between the hijackers and al-Qaeda leadership. All five are being tried before military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. Also read: Remembering 9/11 heroes: Roselle, the guide dog who led a blind man down 78 floors The controversial plea agreement of the 9/11 mastermind There was widespread controversy in July 2024, when a plea agreement was proposed that would have allowed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi to plead guilty in exchange for life sentences without parole, thereby avoiding the death penalty. Following public and political backlash, the then US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin rescinded the deal. In July 2025, a federal appeals court ruled that the plea agreements were not binding, thereby reinstating the possibility of the death penalty. Also read: Who is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11 attacks who'll avoid death penalty? What is the current status of the 9/11 terror attack suspects? At the time of writing this, none of the accused have been convicted or sentenced, even after 24 years. The trials have been marred by frequent delays, legal wrangling, and disputes over evidence, particularly material obtained under torture. There have also been concerns about human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay. Many hearings have been cancelled or rescheduled due to changes in legal teams, mental competency issues, and disputes over classified evidence. Also read: Trump admin launches review of US troops' withdrawal from Afghanistan: Timeline from 9/11 attack to end of '20-year-war' | WION Explains Justice delayed, justice denied: Why the 9/11 case is a stain on US legal history The 9/11 case is arguably one of the most prolonged and controversial in US legal history. Many families of victims are frustrated and disillusioned by the lack of justice. The United States used the 9/11 attacks as a justification to invade Afghanistan in 2001, but withdrew in 2021. The Taliban, originally ousted as a result of that invasion, returned to power amid the chaotic American exit. The global anti-terror sentiment after 9/11 was also used to invade Iraq under the false pretext that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He was captured, tried, and executed in 2006, even though Iraq had no role in the 9/11 attacks. In contrast, none of those captured alive for direct links to the 9/11 attacks have been convicted, executed, or even sentenced. This remains a historical irony and an enduring failure of the US approach to justice and counterterrorism.

<p>24 years after the 9/11 terror attacks, no detained suspect has been convicted or sentenced despite ongoing trials at Guantanamo Bay. Victim families are frustrated and justice still unserved as it remains among the longest terror cases in the US&nbsp;</p>

9/11 anniversary: Justice delayed, justice denied? How the US failed to convict or sentence any of the suspects caught after 24 years

<p>The first part of this article's headline is a quote from the 2005 movie <i>V for Vendetta</i>, based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. The line is spoken by V, the masked anarchist titular character fighting a fascist regime in a dystopian future Britain. When one looks at the recent mass protests that toppled governments in South Asia, the crux of these lines is being proven again: that the people are the sovereigns, and the power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. When regimes tinker with that consent for too long with impunity, eruptions will happen, as the people have the right, and responsibility, to overthrow them. It is not uncommon for governments to forget that they exist to serve the people, and not the other way round. They can be overthrown – by ballots or bullets – if they violate people's trust. Unchecked authoritarianism and corruption will be met with often unexpected levels of resistance and violence.</p><p>What should the governments of the region and further afield learn from the Nepal protest?</p><h2>When people rise up against their government: The tipping point</h2><p>There is always a cocktail of causes that lead to a tipping point: collective action follows when fear, repression, or economic hardship become so unbearable that people are willing to die to make their nations a better place. In South Asia, this idea manifested vividly in recent protests across Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Some of these movements were successful, &nbsp;some led to further chaos and uncertainty, while others are still evolving. &nbsp;</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/guns-fired-weapons-seized-buildings-burnt-the-deadly-day-of-violence-in-nepal-protest-in-pics-gen-z-nepo-kids-oust-pm-oli-1757495741405">Guns fired, weapons seized, buildings burnt: The deadly day of violence in Nepal protest IN PICS</a></p><p><br>But the causes are similar: economic hardship marked by high cost of living and unemployment, authoritarian overreach, social injustices. That’s when ordinary citizens, particularly the youth, roam the streets in defiance of state control, forcing regime changes, government backdowns, or ongoing armed struggles. The outcomes vary by country, but the essence remains the same: when governments consistently instil fear, something breaks in people. In fact their anger makes them fearless.</p><h2>Nepal: Youth-led uprising against corruption and censorship morphs into mayhem</h2><p>In a matter of a week this month, Nepal erupted in widespread "Gen Z" protests triggered by a government ban on social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X. The ostensible reason was the platforms’ alleged failure to register under a new law, but the protests against it went beyond the youth and became an expression of fury over rampant corruption, nepotism ("nepo kids" of elites flaunting luxury amid poverty), and economic stagnation. As youth unemployment hit 20.8 per cent, the protesters – mostly teenagers and young adults – defied curfews, set fire to government buildings like Parliament and the Supreme Court, and targeted politicians' homes, reportedly leading to at least 22 deaths.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nepal-protest-kp-oli-s-india-visit-in-third-term-that-never-happened-1757418162033"><strong>Nepal protest: Oli's India visit in third term — that never happened</strong></a></p><p>The government's violent response – deploying the army and imposing curfews – was evidence of how much it feared its own people. The fragility of the government was evident when Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned and was seen boarding a chopper just two days into the protests, after four cabinet ministers stepped down. The social media ban was lifted, and President Ram Chandra Paudel invited Gen Z leaders for talks, exposing the regime's vulnerability.</p><h2>Bangladesh: Student-led revolution topples a government</h2><p>The 2024 student-led "July Revolution" in Bangladesh started as a protest against the reinstatement of a 30 per cent job quota for descendants of 1971 war veterans, even as the youth were reeling under high unemployment. Peaceful demonstrations soon spiralled into a mass uprising against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's 15-year rule. Hasina faced allegations of corruption, media suppression, and election rigging of the 2024 polls which the opposition had boycotted. Protesters, joined by parents and opposition parties like BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami, stormed Hasina's residence on August 5, forcing her to flee the country.</p><p><strong>Also read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/nepal-protest-ramesh-lekhak-home-minister-resigns-after-18-killed-in-clashes-1757341508160"><strong>Nepal protest: Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak sends resignation after 18 killed in clashes</strong></a></p><p>The protests were fanned by the government's brutal crackdown ordered by Hasina, which reportedly resulted in 1,400 deaths, mostly at the hands of security forces. The "Long March to Dhaka" defied curfews, leading to Hasina's ouster and the taking over of an interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. &nbsp;<br>Even though that 'revolution' soon spiralled into attacks on Awami League supporters and its ban, this was another instance of how the people showed that the government should fear them.</p><h2>Sri Lanka's Aragalaya: A loud cry against years of family rule</h2><p>The 2022 Aragalaya ("struggle") in Sri Lanka was the people’s collective response to the worst economic crisis since the South Asian island’s independence. In the post-pandemic world, the country defaulted on international debt, causing inflation and fuel shortages. The people were already opposed to the corruption under the Rajapaksa family. Days of protests and violence eventually forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country and resign in July. The protesters occupied the seats of power like the presidential palace. Their demand was a "system change", as poverty doubled to 25 per cent. Even today, the crisis's aftermath lingers, with IMF-mandated austerity measures still sparking smaller protests against high taxes and inequality.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-protest-youth-protest-against-corruption-and-economic-stagnation-1757489751958/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-protest-youth-protest-against-corruption-and-economic-stagnation-1757489751958/embed</a></p><p>The Sri Lankan government initially responded with brutal force and the weaponisation of repressive laws like the Prevention of Terrorism Act. But the people refused to leave the streets, and the struggle led to a different electoral result in 2024 that saw the left-leaning Anura Kumara Dissanayake's NPP alliance winning by a landslide. That was a repudiation of the elite that occupied power for decades. Here also, people made the government afraid of them, paving the way for a democratic renewal without full-scale violence.</p><h2>Myanmar: From protests to armed people's war</h2><p>Myanmar’s 2021 military coup and its aftermath is, however, a more nuanced story. After the removal of Aung San Suu Kyi's elected government and installation of a military junta, a massive civil disobedience and protest followed. It was met with lethal force, with at least 2,500 civilians reportedly killed. In the past two years, the civilian protests died down, with the resistance evolving into a civil war. The National Unity Government (NUG) and ethnic armed groups like the Arakan Army and Kachin Independence Army have captured territories like Lashio and Ann, controlling 42 per cent of the country.</p><p>The junta responded with airstrikes, torture, and civilian killings – reportedly 6,486 deaths by April 2025. The People's Resistance Force, which emerged as a response to the coup, has grown from 65,000 fighters in 2022 to 85,000 by 2024, even as 93 per cent of the public is estimated to be supporting the NUG. The events have displaced some 3.5 million, and the chaotic situation continues, with people continuing to resist the government.</p><h2>Pakistan and Afghanistan: The story is still evolving</h2><p>Similar protest movements are taking place against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the current dispensation in Pakistan. In spite of the jailing of former prime minister Imran Khan, his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party led protests. In these marches, thousands defied barricades and prohibitory orders, with nearly 1,000 people arrested and at least six people killed.</p><p>The government has shut down the internet several times, used Section 144 for bans and curfews, and made mass arrests of more than 500 in August. Some 108 PTI members were jailed in 2025, often on anti-terrorism convictions. The government clearly fears PTI's mobilisation. But how far Khan can survive and succeed depends on a number of factors. The powerful army-intelligence nexus has been running Pakistan for years. It is not easy to topple that regime. But one day, things could change dramatically.</p><h2>A regional tide of defiance</h2><p>The pattern across these nations is clear: people protest, and governments afraid of loss of control and power respond with violence, censorship, or repression. But that often backfires very quickly. Economic crises (Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) and authoritarianism (Myanmar, Afghanistan, Pakistan) are fuelling youth-led resistance, leading to resignations (Nepal, Bangladesh), electoral shifts (Sri Lanka), or sustained warfare (Myanmar). In the case of Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, the story is still unfolding: defiance persists, but at a heavy cost.</p><h2>The results are not always rosy</h2><p>It has been seen that the final results of any mass movement are not perfect. It is messy, often transitional. Sometimes such movements only replace one repressive regime with another. External influences and games in the chess of global influence complicate these people’s movements. But they all point to a lesson that the powerful often forget: when pushed to the brink, people shed fear, making governments deal with the power of their collective action.<br>&nbsp;</p><p><i>Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer</i></p>

Mass protests across South Asia—from Nepal to Bangladesh and beyond—show rising youth-led resistance against authoritarianism, corruption, and economic woes. These movements prove that people are the final authority, and when pushed, they can make governments fear them 



The first part of this article's headline is a quote from the 2005 movie V for Vendetta, based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. The line is spoken by V, the masked anarchist titular character fighting a fascist regime in a dystopian future Britain. When one looks at the recent mass protests that toppled governments in South Asia, the crux of these lines is being proven again: that the people are the sovereigns, and the power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed. When regimes tinker with that consent for too long with impunity, eruptions will happen, as the people have the right, and responsibility, to overthrow them. It is not uncommon for governments to forget that they exist to serve the people, and not the other way round. They can be overthrown – by ballots or bullets – if they violate people's trust. Unchecked authoritarianism and corruption will be met with often unexpected levels of resistance and violence. What should the governments of the region and further afield learn from the Nepal protest? When people rise up against their government: The tipping point There is always a cocktail of causes that lead to a tipping point: collective action follows when fear, repression, or economic hardship become so unbearable that people are willing to die to make their nations a better place. In South Asia, this idea manifested vividly in recent protests across Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Some of these movements were successful, some led to further chaos and uncertainty, while others are still evolving. Also read: Guns fired, weapons seized, buildings burnt: The deadly day of violence in Nepal protest IN PICS But the causes are similar: economic hardship marked by high cost of living and unemployment, authoritarian overreach, social injustices. That’s when ordinary citizens, particularly the youth, roam the streets in defiance of state control, forcing regime changes, government backdowns, or ongoing armed struggles. The outcomes vary by country, but the essence remains the same: when governments consistently instil fear, something breaks in people. In fact their anger makes them fearless. Nepal: Youth-led uprising against corruption and censorship morphs into mayhem In a matter of a week this month, Nepal erupted in widespread "Gen Z" protests triggered by a government ban on social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X. The ostensible reason was the platforms’ alleged failure to register under a new law, but the protests against it went beyond the youth and became an expression of fury over rampant corruption, nepotism ("nepo kids" of elites flaunting luxury amid poverty), and economic stagnation. As youth unemployment hit 20.8 per cent, the protesters – mostly teenagers and young adults – defied curfews, set fire to government buildings like Parliament and the Supreme Court, and targeted politicians' homes, reportedly leading to at least 22 deaths. Also read: Nepal protest: Oli's India visit in third term — that never happened The government's violent response – deploying the army and imposing curfews – was evidence of how much it feared its own people. The fragility of the government was evident when Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned and was seen boarding a chopper just two days into the protests, after four cabinet ministers stepped down. The social media ban was lifted, and President Ram Chandra Paudel invited Gen Z leaders for talks, exposing the regime's vulnerability. Bangladesh: Student-led revolution topples a government The 2024 student-led "July Revolution" in Bangladesh started as a protest against the reinstatement of a 30 per cent job quota for descendants of 1971 war veterans, even as the youth were reeling under high unemployment. Peaceful demonstrations soon spiralled into a mass uprising against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's 15-year rule. Hasina faced allegations of corruption, media suppression, and election rigging of the 2024 polls which the opposition had boycotted. Protesters, joined by parents and opposition parties like BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami, stormed Hasina's residence on August 5, forcing her to flee the country. Also read: Nepal protest: Home Minister Ramesh Lekhak sends resignation after 18 killed in clashes The protests were fanned by the government's brutal crackdown ordered by Hasina, which reportedly resulted in 1,400 deaths, mostly at the hands of security forces. The "Long March to Dhaka" defied curfews, leading to Hasina's ouster and the taking over of an interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. Even though that 'revolution' soon spiralled into attacks on Awami League supporters and its ban, this was another instance of how the people showed that the government should fear them. Sri Lanka's Aragalaya: A loud cry against years of family rule The 2022 Aragalaya ("struggle") in Sri Lanka was the people’s collective response to the worst economic crisis since the South Asian island’s independence. In the post-pandemic world, the country defaulted on international debt, causing inflation and fuel shortages. The people were already opposed to the corruption under the Rajapaksa family. Days of protests and violence eventually forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country and resign in July. The protesters occupied the seats of power like the presidential palace. Their demand was a "system change", as poverty doubled to 25 per cent. Even today, the crisis's aftermath lingers, with IMF-mandated austerity measures still sparking smaller protests against high taxes and inequality. https://www.wionews.com/videos/nepal-protest-youth-protest-against-corruption-and-economic-stagnation-1757489751958/embed The Sri Lankan government initially responded with brutal force and the weaponisation of repressive laws like the Prevention of Terrorism Act. But the people refused to leave the streets, and the struggle led to a different electoral result in 2024 that saw the left-leaning Anura Kumara Dissanayake's NPP alliance winning by a landslide. That was a repudiation of the elite that occupied power for decades. Here also, people made the government afraid of them, paving the way for a democratic renewal without full-scale violence. Myanmar: From protests to armed people's war Myanmar’s 2021 military coup and its aftermath is, however, a more nuanced story. After the removal of Aung San Suu Kyi's elected government and installation of a military junta, a massive civil disobedience and protest followed. It was met with lethal force, with at least 2,500 civilians reportedly killed. In the past two years, the civilian protests died down, with the resistance evolving into a civil war. The National Unity Government (NUG) and ethnic armed groups like the Arakan Army and Kachin Independence Army have captured territories like Lashio and Ann, controlling 42 per cent of the country. The junta responded with airstrikes, torture, and civilian killings – reportedly 6,486 deaths by April 2025. The People's Resistance Force, which emerged as a response to the coup, has grown from 65,000 fighters in 2022 to 85,000 by 2024, even as 93 per cent of the public is estimated to be supporting the NUG. The events have displaced some 3.5 million, and the chaotic situation continues, with people continuing to resist the government. Pakistan and Afghanistan: The story is still evolving Similar protest movements are taking place against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and the current dispensation in Pakistan. In spite of the jailing of former prime minister Imran Khan, his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party led protests. In these marches, thousands defied barricades and prohibitory orders, with nearly 1,000 people arrested and at least six people killed. The government has shut down the internet several times, used Section 144 for bans and curfews, and made mass arrests of more than 500 in August. Some 108 PTI members were jailed in 2025, often on anti-terrorism convictions. The government clearly fears PTI's mobilisation. But how far Khan can survive and succeed depends on a number of factors. The powerful army-intelligence nexus has been running Pakistan for years. It is not easy to topple that regime. But one day, things could change dramatically. A regional tide of defiance The pattern across these nations is clear: people protest, and governments afraid of loss of control and power respond with violence, censorship, or repression. But that often backfires very quickly. Economic crises (Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) and authoritarianism (Myanmar, Afghanistan, Pakistan) are fuelling youth-led resistance, leading to resignations (Nepal, Bangladesh), electoral shifts (Sri Lanka), or sustained warfare (Myanmar). In the case of Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, the story is still unfolding: defiance persists, but at a heavy cost. The results are not always rosy It has been seen that the final results of any mass movement are not perfect. It is messy, often transitional. Sometimes such movements only replace one repressive regime with another. External influences and games in the chess of global influence complicate these people’s movements. But they all point to a lesson that the powerful often forget: when pushed to the brink, people shed fear, making governments deal with the power of their collective action. Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer

<p>Mass protests across South Asia—from Nepal to Bangladesh and beyond—show rising youth-led resistance against authoritarianism, corruption, and economic woes. These movements prove that people are the final authority, and when pushed, they can make governments fear them&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people: Lessons from South Asia

<p>In my school days, I was taught a story about a wolf which watches two goats fight and drinks blood from both. Qatar, a tiny Gulf Arab nation, has been a peacemaker and its state-backed channel Al Jazeera has been a ringside spectator of the conflicts in the Middle East. The recent attacks, first from Iran and now from Israel, shows that Qatar is not having the same good fortune as the wolf. It has been the host of the political office of Hamas, whose peace negotiators were the target of the air strike on Tuesday (Sep 9). For all its efforts, Al Jazeera has seen its journalists being killed. Reportage has become dangerous to life and limb for them, with several moving out of Gaza and being ousted from Israel. The peacemaker-spectator role is becoming costly for Qatar. Is it time for it to reset its role in international affairs?</p><h2>What happened to Hamas leadership in the Israeli attack in Qatar?</h2><p>At least six people were killed in Doha on Tuesday when Israel targeted the Hamas peace negotiators huddled in the Qatari capital to examine an American ceasefire proposal. Those who died included guards and a child of a Hamas negotiator, while the main team, the intended target, escaped unharmed. For Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directed the operation even without sharing prior information with its main ally, the US, it was still considered a victory. It was a warning that, if it wanted, Israel could try to take out Hamas leadership in foreign nations. But for Qatar, it might have been a rude wake-up call. Doha hosts many foreigners. The target area had schools, and the attack happened soon after school time was over. Qatar has a responsibility to take care of its residents. And it does not have the military capacity on its own to directly confront the might of Israel.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/israel-iran-war-qatar-us-air-base-al-udeid-attack-where-is-qatar-how-tiny-arab-nation-went-from-a-clout-builder-to-target-of-iranian-attack-1750741250557">Where is Qatar? How tiny Arab nation went from a clout builder to target of Iranian attack</a></p><h2>Targeting of Al Jazeera journalists: Killing the messenger</h2><p>During the Gaza war, at least two Al Jazeera journalists were killed. In the recent flare-ups, several other journalists from Al Jazeera have been injured or had to flee. Israel also ousted journalists from the channel from its territory. Al Jazeera had been the voice of the other side in the Hamas-Israel war, focused on the humanitarian crisis and alleged starvation of Palestinians. But the Doha-based channel is now unable to function to the extent it used to.</p><p>Qatar was hit by Iran in response to US-Israel attacks on its nuclear sites<br>The shocking strike of Tuesday renewed memories of the June attack by Iran targeting the American-operated Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. That was in response to US-Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear sites at the height of regional tensions. The Israeli attack rounds up this cycle: Qatar has now been hit by both sides of the Middle East conflict.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/qatar-denies-trump-s-informed-qataris-about-israel-doha-attack-claim-1757443136413">Qatar denies White House's 'informed Qataris about Doha attack' claim: Did Trump betray close US ally for Israel?</a></p><h2>Qatar’s clout had grown in recent years, but it could be a burden for its citizens</h2><p>Qatar had gained significant geopolitical influence through diplomacy, mediation in global conflicts, and media power mainly through Al Jazeera. However, this clout is proving to be a danger to its citizens and expatriate residents.<br>Rich in natural gas and hosting the US base, Qatar has long held strategic value for the West. Despite its tiny size, it plays a large role in regional diplomacy and conflict mediation, including in Afghanistan, Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan. Qatar was a neutral mediator in conflicts involving the US, Taliban, Israel-Hamas, and Russia-Ukraine, earning a reputation as a reliable peace broker.</p><p>But both the Israeli and Iranian attacks are raising a question for Qatar: Will it be able to protect its population of around 3.1 million, nearly 88 per cent of them foreigners, a large portion being Indian expatriates?</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-not-thrilled-trump-blasts-netanyahu-in-rare-rebuke-after-qatar-air-strikes-1757473641448">'Not thrilled': Trump blasts Netanyahu in rare rebuke after Qatar air strikes</a></p><h2>Punching beyond its weight: The costs of influence peddling</h2><p>Qatar’s assertive foreign policy, punching beyond its weight, and ties with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran led to a 2017–2021 boycott of the nation by fellow Arab countries Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and Bahrain. They accused Qatar of supporting terrorism, and severed trade, travel, and diplomatic relations.<br>Al Jazeera network’s support for democratic movements during the Arab Spring and its critical reporting had already drawn ire from other Arab regimes.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-israeli-military-says-it-attacks-hamas-leaders-in-qatar-s-doha-1757430362496/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-israeli-military-says-it-attacks-hamas-leaders-in-qatar-s-doha-1757430362496/embed</a></p><h2>Qatar in the line of fire</h2><p>The June 24 Iran attack on the US air base was the first time Qatar was directly targeted in a regional war. Israel’s strike of Tuesday is the second. These incidents raise questions about the future safety of Qatar, despite hosting US forces.<br>Qatar’s rise as a diplomatic and media power has boosted its international standing. The same is now making the nation vulnerable to regional rivalries and conflicts. The peacemaker has become the target. Will it be as lucky as that wolf?</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

Qatar has been plays a key key role in mediating Middle East conflicts. But recent Iranian and Israeli attacks, including a strike on Hamas negotiators in Doha, have exposed its vulnerability despite US military presence. Its diplomatic clout now risks endangering citizens and expats

In my school days, I was taught a story about a wolf which watches two goats fight and drinks blood from both. Qatar, a tiny Gulf Arab nation, has been a peacemaker and its state-backed channel Al Jazeera has been a ringside spectator of the conflicts in the Middle East. The recent attacks, first from Iran and now from Israel, shows that Qatar is not having the same good fortune as the wolf. It has been the host of the political office of Hamas, whose peace negotiators were the target of the air strike on Tuesday (Sep 9). For all its efforts, Al Jazeera has seen its journalists being killed. Reportage has become dangerous to life and limb for them, with several moving out of Gaza and being ousted from Israel. The peacemaker-spectator role is becoming costly for Qatar. Is it time for it to reset its role in international affairs? What happened to Hamas leadership in the Israeli attack in Qatar? At least six people were killed in Doha on Tuesday when Israel targeted the Hamas peace negotiators huddled in the Qatari capital to examine an American ceasefire proposal. Those who died included guards and a child of a Hamas negotiator, while the main team, the intended target, escaped unharmed. For Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directed the operation even without sharing prior information with its main ally, the US, it was still considered a victory. It was a warning that, if it wanted, Israel could try to take out Hamas leadership in foreign nations. But for Qatar, it might have been a rude wake-up call. Doha hosts many foreigners. The target area had schools, and the attack happened soon after school time was over. Qatar has a responsibility to take care of its residents. And it does not have the military capacity on its own to directly confront the might of Israel. Also read: Where is Qatar? How tiny Arab nation went from a clout builder to target of Iranian attack Targeting of Al Jazeera journalists: Killing the messenger During the Gaza war, at least two Al Jazeera journalists were killed. In the recent flare-ups, several other journalists from Al Jazeera have been injured or had to flee. Israel also ousted journalists from the channel from its territory. Al Jazeera had been the voice of the other side in the Hamas-Israel war, focused on the humanitarian crisis and alleged starvation of Palestinians. But the Doha-based channel is now unable to function to the extent it used to. Qatar was hit by Iran in response to US-Israel attacks on its nuclear sites The shocking strike of Tuesday renewed memories of the June attack by Iran targeting the American-operated Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. That was in response to US-Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear sites at the height of regional tensions. The Israeli attack rounds up this cycle: Qatar has now been hit by both sides of the Middle East conflict. Also read: Qatar denies White House's 'informed Qataris about Doha attack' claim: Did Trump betray close US ally for Israel? Qatar’s clout had grown in recent years, but it could be a burden for its citizens Qatar had gained significant geopolitical influence through diplomacy, mediation in global conflicts, and media power mainly through Al Jazeera. However, this clout is proving to be a danger to its citizens and expatriate residents. Rich in natural gas and hosting the US base, Qatar has long held strategic value for the West. Despite its tiny size, it plays a large role in regional diplomacy and conflict mediation, including in Afghanistan, Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan. Qatar was a neutral mediator in conflicts involving the US, Taliban, Israel-Hamas, and Russia-Ukraine, earning a reputation as a reliable peace broker. But both the Israeli and Iranian attacks are raising a question for Qatar: Will it be able to protect its population of around 3.1 million, nearly 88 per cent of them foreigners, a large portion being Indian expatriates? Also read: 'Not thrilled': Trump blasts Netanyahu in rare rebuke after Qatar air strikes Punching beyond its weight: The costs of influence peddling Qatar’s assertive foreign policy, punching beyond its weight, and ties with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran led to a 2017–2021 boycott of the nation by fellow Arab countries Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and Bahrain. They accused Qatar of supporting terrorism, and severed trade, travel, and diplomatic relations. Al Jazeera network’s support for democratic movements during the Arab Spring and its critical reporting had already drawn ire from other Arab regimes. https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-israeli-military-says-it-attacks-hamas-leaders-in-qatar-s-doha-1757430362496/embed Qatar in the line of fire The June 24 Iran attack on the US air base was the first time Qatar was directly targeted in a regional war. Israel’s strike of Tuesday is the second. These incidents raise questions about the future safety of Qatar, despite hosting US forces. Qatar’s rise as a diplomatic and media power has boosted its international standing. The same is now making the nation vulnerable to regional rivalries and conflicts. The peacemaker has become the target. Will it be as lucky as that wolf?

<p>Qatar has been plays a key key role in mediating Middle East conflicts. But recent Iranian and Israeli attacks, including a strike on Hamas negotiators in Doha, have exposed its vulnerability despite US military presence. Its diplomatic clout now risks endangering citizens and expats</p>

Qatar the peacemaker attacked twice by rivals in regional war. Time to reset its global role?

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Vinod Janardhanan

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.