Worldwide furor after Jimmy Lai sentenced to 20 years behind bars

By

-

February 10, 2026

Lai convicted of national security charges in Hong Kong — Jimmy Lai has been in jail since 2020

A Quiet Wave of Reverberation: Jimmy Lai’s Sentence and What It Means

It was a raw, wintry morning outside West Kowloon Court—a small but stubborn knot of humanity huddled against a pale sky, breath fogging in the air, eyes fixed on a building that had been transformed into a theater of law and politics.

Among the faces were former Apple Daily reporters with ink still under their fingernails in spirit if not in print, a retired bishop in a simple cassock, and a wife whose steady presence has been a constant through years of trials. They watched 78-year-old Jimmy Lai led back to a cell after judges handed down a 20-year sentence in a case that has become shorthand for the fracture lines running through Hong Kong—and reverberating around the world.

The Sentence in Plain Terms

The court’s ruling is straightforward on paper: found guilty on two counts tied to alleged foreign collusion under Hong Kong’s national security law, plus a count of seditious publication, Lai was dealt a 20-year sentence. Two years will overlap with a separate term he is already serving, leaving what the court described as an “additional” 18 years.

That arithmetic—an 18-year increase for a man approaching 80—has reanimated familiar questions about proportionality, the role of age and health in sentencing, and the ever-sharper divide over how national security is being interpreted in the city.

Charges, Context, Consequences

Lai founded Apple Daily, a tabloid that combined investigative zeal with a populist flair, and which became one of Hong Kong’s most outspoken pro-democracy outlets. The paper shut its doors in 2021 after a series of police raids and asset freezes that crippled its operations.

All told, authorities say some 386 people have been arrested under national security provisions as of the start of this month, with 176 convicted—a statistic that underlines the disappearance of ambiguity in how broadly the law can be applied.

Voices in the Courtroom and on the Street

Inside the court, Lai sat with the loneliness of a man who has watched a life’s work dismantled. Outside, a disparate chorus spoke in tones that ranged from grieving to resigned to defiant.

“I brought my press badge because I wanted him to know that the paper didn’t die just because the presses stopped,” said Mei-ling, a former Apple Daily layout artist who stood in the queue since dawn. “But the air is different now. People talk softer. Even the old vendors in my market whisper where they once laughed.”

“This sentence is as much a message as it is a punishment,” said an activist who asked not to be named. “It’s saying: this is what happens when you test the limits.”

International Alarm, Local Dismay

The response has been swift and wide-ranging. The United Nations’ human rights office urged Lai’s immediate release, calling the verdict incompatible with international law. The European Union described the sentence as deplorable and demanded unconditional release. Britain called it tantamount to a life sentence and said it would raise the issue at the highest diplomatic levels.

These statements are more than ceremonial noise. They are diplomatic alarm bells: a signal to China and Hong Kong authorities that the international community is watching—and that the repercussions will be political, reputational, and in some cases, bilateral.

Legal Arguments and Human Costs

“The charges are, at their core, a prosecution of journalism,” said one lawyer familiar with the case. Observers noted that defense teams stressed Lai’s age and fragile health during proceedings, warning that a long prison term could effectively become a death sentence.

Prosecutors countered by pointing to medical reports they say show Lai’s condition is stable, and to his conduct, which the judges described as characterized by “resentment and hatred” toward Beijing and an intent to bring about the CCP’s downfall. Whether such motives translate to criminal conspiracy has become the central legal debate.

What This Means for Press Freedom

Press freedom groups have been unequivocal. “This trial has been nothing but a charade,” said a statement from an international media watchdog, adding that Lai’s sentence will resonate far beyond his person and send a “decisive signal” about journalism’s future in the city.

Reporters who remain in Hong Kong describe a culture of caution that has seeped into editorial rooms, freelance networks and even among citizen journalists. “We used to shout into the microphone,” said one independent reporter. “Now we measure every word like it could be a trap.”

Local Color and Small Acts of Memory

Outside the courthouse, a noodle stall owner—whose grandfather arrived in Hong Kong in the 1950s—offered a plate free to anyone who had once read Apple Daily. It felt like a private ritual, a way of keeping a journalist’s name in circulation when print could no longer do the job.

Cardinal Joseph Zen and Teresa Lai, Jimmy’s wife, were in the public gallery. Their presence was a quiet reminder that the story is also personal: a family’s years, a community’s losses, a city’s shifting identity.

Questions for a Global Audience

What does the jailing of a high-profile media figure tell us about the limits of dissent in a globalized, digital age? How should democracies respond when businesses, newsrooms, and civil society are squeezed within legal frameworks that are themselves evolving rapidly?

These are not abstract questions. They affect foreign investment, migration patterns, and the vibrancy of cities that once thrived as pluralistic hubs. They also raise moral questions about solidarity—how and when the international community should step in, and what measures actually help those on the ground.

Looking Ahead

For now, the case returns to the same uneasy space where law and politics meet. Eight other defendants, including former Apple Daily executives who pleaded guilty, are due to be sentenced alongside Lai. Observers say the rulings will be watched for their ripple effects: in newsroom morale, in business decisions, and in the choices people make about whether to speak up or step back.

“I don’t think this is just about Jimmy Lai,” said a human rights researcher based in the region. “It’s about the story we tell about Hong Kong to the world. Is it a place that tolerates dissent? Or is it a place where the price of dissent is being erased, one sentence at a time?”

That question hangs over the city like a winter sky. It invites you, the reader, to consider not only the fate of a man but the fate of an idea: the idea that a free press can hold power accountable without being itself criminalized. Is that idea expendable in the name of security? Or is it precisely what defines the kind of society most of us want to live in?

Timeline of the major challenges confronting Keir Starmer so far

By

hanad

-

February 9, 2026

Timeline: Key issues facing Keir Starmer so far — Keir Starmer is not resigning and will be 'concentrating on the job in hand', Downing Street has said.

A Triumph That Began to Unravel: The Prime Minister’s First 18 Months

On a bright July evening in 2024, confetti drifted down Whitehall and a crowd outside Downing Street sang as if the last decade had been a long winter finally thawing. Keir Starmer, having swept Labour back into power with a thumping majority of more than 400 seats, strode into Number 10 with the air of a man who intended to tidy up, steady the ship and get on with governing.

Words like “reset” and “stability” were uttered with relish. But governing is an art of compromises and collisions. Eighteen months later, that tidy narrative has started to fray at the edges — sometimes with noise and scandal, sometimes with policy missteps, always with the relentless grind of politics turning up the heat on a prime minister who once seemed unassailable.

From pomp to pressure

The honeymoon was short. Within weeks, Labour was hit by rows over ministerial gifts and hospitality, a contentious winter-fuel means test that would touch vulnerable pensioners, and a budget from Chancellor Rachel Reeves that promised roughly £40 billion a year in new tax measures — a fiscal jolt meant to stabilise public finances, but one that added to an atmosphere of squeeze and sacrifice.

“We thought we’d get calm, professional government,” said Aisha Khan, a café owner near Manchester who voted Labour in 2024. “Instead we’re watching headline after headline. People here worry about heating bills more than headlines.” Her worry is real: the government’s partial U‑turn in May — restoring winter fuel payments to pensioners on incomes up to £35,000 at an estimated cost of around £1.25 billion — was a political admission that the original plan had been politically and humanly fraught.

Unrest, culture and the politics of grief

Not all the crises were fiscal. In late summer a single horrific incident — the death of three girls at a themed dance class in Southport — exploded into nationwide unrest, revealing the unpredictable ways personal tragedy can slip into political narratives. “We were grieving,” said Sandra Lopez, a grandmother who joined a candlelit vigil in the seaside town. “Then our grief was on the news as if it were another story about who is failing whom.”

Those raw moments feed into something larger: a sense among many voters that institutions are brittle, social cohesion is frayed, and politicians are often far removed from ordinary lives.

Policy, rebellion and the parliamentary squeeze

Starmer sought steady reform: raising defence spending, tightening immigration, overhauling welfare. Some of these moves were strategic responses to a more hostile political environment — not least the rise of Reform UK and its surge in local council seats in May’s local elections, which left Labour performing below expectations and hungry for answers.

But policy theatre can become perilous. The prime minister endured his largest parliamentary rebellion on 1 July, when 49 Labour MPs opposed his welfare proposals despite late concessions. Earlier, more than 100 Labour MPs signed an amendment to halt welfare legislation — a striking display of backbench muscle.

“You can only command obedience with logic and trust,” said Dr Helen Armitage, a constitutional scholar. “When members sense compromise with principle, they withdraw support. Labour’s internal revolt is the symptom of deeper doubts about direction and consultation.”

Other marked policy moments: a post‑Brexit “reset” deal with the EU on defence and trade frictions; the controversial nationalisation of British Steel after emergency weekend legislation intended to protect UK steelmaking; and a hardening on immigration that saw the prime minister regretfully withdraw language that critics likened to historical exclusionary rhetoric.

The transatlantic tightrope: Trump, trade and diplomacy

If domestic politics has been knotty, Starmer’s foreign policy has been a study in tightropes. He met President Donald Trump at the White House and formally handed an invitation for a second state visit — an encounter that was as much about realpolitik as it was about optics. A tentative trade understanding that removed the immediate threat of US tariffs on British cars and planes was hailed as a win, even as steel remained a point of negotiation.

“We need markets and allies,” said Eleanor Fitzgerald, a trade analyst. “But every handshake with Washington risks domestic blowback if it looks like appeasement.”

At the same time, Starmer helped convene European leaders in London to discuss a deterrent peacekeeping framework for Ukraine — a reminder that global conflicts and transnational solidarity loom large in Westminster’s deliberations.

Scandal, secrecy and the Mandelson saga

Perhaps the single event that shifted the tone from strained governance to an acute crisis was the Peter Mandelson episode. Once a Labour grandeee, Mandelson’s appointment to be ambassador in Washington was meant to leverage his experience and contacts. Instead, revelations linking him to Jeffrey Epstein and leaked emails alleging the sharing of market‑sensitive information plunged Number 10 into turmoil.

“I am sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointed him,” the prime minister later said — an apology that, for many victims and critics, felt overdue. The fallout was swift: Mandelson was sacked, the ambassadorial thread was cut, and within days Downing Street’s chief of staff Morgan McSweeney and communications director Tim Allan resigned.

“It shows how reputations can be toxic legacies,” said former diplomat Mark Hargreaves. “Appointment decisions carry risk. Trust is the currency of effective government, and that currency has been devalued.”

Calls for leadership change

Calls for the prime minister to step down were not confined to the opposition. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar publicly urged Starmer to quit, and rumours of a challenge from within — including whispers around Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham — swirled through conference corridors. MPs have left: one veteran cited ill health in January, and high‑profile resignations have punctured the leadership’s aura of stability.

“Politics is unforgiving when the narrative turns against you,” said backbencher Jamie Lowe. “One minute you’re the steward of national repair; the next, you’re apologising for another appointment.”

What does it all mean? A fragile centre, global turbulence

So what are we watching? A few strands stand out. First, the fragility of the political centre in an age of populist flux: voters are fluid, and parties that once anchored mainstream politics now face insurgent actors promising simplicity in hard times. Second, the churning of global geopolitics — from Ukraine to Washington — means domestic leaders must navigate external storms while keeping their own house in order.

And finally, an age of relentless scrutiny: digital leaks, archived emails, and the gossip economy of modern media mean that appointments and private conversations can explode into public crises overnight.

As a reader, what do you make of this unfolding drama? Do you see it as the inevitable turbulence of a new government finding its feet, or as a deeper collapse of trust that requires wholesale renewal? In cafes and council chambers from Southport to Scunthorpe, people are asking the same question: can the promise of that bright July night still be delivered?

Closing notes

Labour has not failed overnight, nor has any single scandal sealed a political fate. But the last 18 months show how quickly political capital can be spent. Whether Starmer steadies the ship or the ship lists further will depend on policy clarity, judgement in appointments, and — crucially — the party’s ability to reconnect with voters who feel the policy debates are distant from their daily struggles.

“Politics is about credibility and competence,” said Iris Coleman, a retired schoolteacher who voted Labour in 2024. “If they can prove they care for people, not just balance sheets and photo ops, there’s still time. But it’s getting late for some.”

Key figures: Labour majority >400 seats (July 2024); Chancellor announced ~£40bn in extra taxes; defence spending pledged to 2.5% of GDP by 2027; winter fuel U‑turn cost ~£1.25bn.
Major political blows: 49‑MP rebellion; Mandelson sacking after Epstein-linked revelations; resignations of chief of staff and communications director in February 2026.

History moves fast when trust is thin. Keep watching — and ask yourself: which kinds of leaders would you trust to steady the ship in such weather?

Irish man held by ICE in US says detention threatens his life

By

hanad

-

February 9, 2026

Irish man detained by ICE in US fearing for his life — Seamus Culleton was detained by ICE in Boston where he lived with his wife Tiffany Smyth

A Boston Life on Hold: An Irishman’s Plea from a Texas Tent Camp

When Seamus Culleton closes his eyes, he does not see the red-brick terraced streets of Glenmore in County Kilkenny or the bay at Barna where the family used to meet. He hears the distant clank of a metal door and the murmur of dozens of other voices under a canvas roof 3,700 kilometres from his Boston home—an unfamiliar geography that has become his world since last September.

“You don’t know what’s going to happen on a day-to-day basis,” he told callers on Irish radio from a detention centre in El Paso, Texas. “You don’t know if there’ll be riots, if someone will get sick, if a transfer will come at midnight. It’s a nightmare down here.”

Seamus’s story reads like a modern migration fable: work, marriage, a petition for permanent residency, and then—suddenly—silence, distance, and the indifference of a system. But it is not a fable. It is very real for the Culleton family, who have been living in limbo while one of their own waits in a tented ICE facility, pleading for help across an ocean.

The Day the Van Stopped

He was running an errand. After a day’s shift, Seamus stopped at a Home Depot to return a few items from his work van. Two minutes into his drive home, a blue Ford fell in behind him and stayed there. “It just looked odd—the driver had these deep reflective sunglasses,” he recalled. “Then he put on blue lights, and within minutes there were seven or eight cars.”

He complied when officers asked him to roll down his window. He told them he was married to a US citizen, that he had a pending marriage-based petition, and that he had recently been issued a work permit. None of that saved him. He was handcuffed, processed, briefly held in Burlington, Massachusetts, and then moved—first to New York, and then to Texas—without clear explanations.

“They tried to make me sign deportation papers,” he said. “I didn’t sign anything. I’m still waiting for the Green Card interview to be completed. It feels like someone pressed pause on my life.”

Inside the Tents

Picture canvas walls instead of concrete. Rows of makeshift sleeping areas, fluorescent lights humming through the night. Seamus describes the site as a campus of temporary tents—“probably room for a thousand people in each tent,” he said—with five such structures sitting under the harsh West Texas sun.

Living conditions, he says, are grim. “We get three meals a day, but they’re like kid-size portions. There are two TVs on the wall, seventy-two detainees in our room, and I’ve been in the same space for four and a half months.” The toilets and showers, he adds, are “very rarely cleaned.”

For many migrants and would-be immigrants, detention in the United States means time in a sprawling, bureaucratic system that moves people across states without much notice. Transfers of detainees thousands of kilometres from their homes are not uncommon, and for families, the logistical and emotional cost is crushing: missed appointments, shattered finances, and the constant fear of losing a spouse, a breadwinner, a parent.

Data on immigration detention fluctuates with policy and administration, but Department of Homeland Security figures in recent years show that tens of thousands of people pass through ICE custody annually. Even when average daily populations drop, the human stories behind those numbers—like Seamus’s—reveal a tangle of legal limbo, health concerns, and family trauma that the statistics cannot fully cover.

“I’m in Fear for My Life”

Seamus speaks plainly about his fear. “I’m in fear for my life here,” he told listeners. “No fresh air, no sunlight. We’ve hardly any outside time. You don’t know if there’ll be an outbreak, or if someone will get violent. It’s a torture.”

His wife, Tiffany Smyth, stayed in Boston and lived through the first terrifying week when the line to the world went dead. “He rang and said, ‘Don’t freak out’—then, ‘ICE picked me up,’” Tiffany remembers. “He had under a minute on the phone to tell me where he’d parked the van.” After that, weeks of no news followed while she tried online trackers and called friends and lawyers to locate him.

“I didn’t know if he had been deported or worse,” Tiffany says. “You feel powerless and angry. We were desperate to start a family. That dream is on hold.”

Family, Politics and a Plea for Help

Back in Kilkenny, Seamus’s mother wakes each morning with worry. “She’s heartbroken,” he said. “She calls every day.” His sister Caroline describes her brother’s arrest as “the start of the nightmare. His whole life just ended that day.”

In Dublin, politicians have taken notice. Fianna Fáil TD John McGuinness has urged immediate diplomatic action and says he has briefed the Taoiseach’s office, calling for contact with US authorities. Social Democrats Senator Patricia Sheehan described the conditions as a violation of human rights and demanded “credible action.” Labour TD Duncan Smith called Seamus’s testimony “harrowing” and urged the government to obtain information on all Irish citizens currently in ICE detention.

“There needs to be an urgent response from foreign affairs,” McGuinness said in a statement. “We can’t leave citizens stranded thousands of kilometres away without visibility or assistance.”

What This Case Tells Us

Seamus’s account is not just one man’s plight; it sits at the intersection of larger debates about migration, due process, and the transnational reach of state power. What do we owe citizens who make their lives abroad? How do legal systems preserve dignity when the machinery of detention is designed for efficiency rather than empathy?

Human rights advocates say transparency and access to legal counsel are vital. “The problem is not just transfers across states—it’s that families have no way to advocate when their loved ones are moved out of reach,” says an immigration lawyer who requested anonymity to speak freely about ICE practices. “This affects people who have built lives here: jobs, families, entitlements tied to pending applications.”

There’s an emotional geography to this case, too: the New England Irish community has for generations been a cushion for newcomers, a network that stretches from parish halls in Kilkenny to pubs in Boston. When one of its members is suddenly invisible, that communal web is put to the test.

What Would You Do?

Ask yourself: if someone you loved were taken across a continent and placed in a tent behind barbed wire, how quickly would you scramble to find them? How loud should small governments be in pressing larger partners for humane treatment of their citizens? And what does fairness look like when the wheels of immigration law grind slowly and implacably?

For now, Seamus waits. His petition remains open, his work permit still on file, and his plea to Irish leaders simple and direct: “Please, do all you can. I just want to get back to my life.”

There are no neat endings yet, only a long corridor of uncertainty. But every time a member of a diaspora raises their voice—across a tent wall, a phone line, a parliamentary chamber—that corridor becomes a little more visible. The question is whether visibility will turn into action before more lives are put on hold.

What would happen if Keir Starmer resigns or faces a challenge?

By

hanad

-

February 9, 2026

What happens if Keir Starmer quits, or is challenged? — A police officer stands outside the official residence of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer

A sudden storm in Downing Street: the moment Westminster felt smaller than ever

It was the kind of Westminster morning that makes even seasoned aides check their phones twice. Rain stitched the sky over Whitehall and a line of umbrellas shuffled past the gates of Downing Street, but the real deluge had nothing to do with weather. The government’s headlines were being rewritten mid-broadcast, and the centre of the storm was an appointment that was supposed to be a diplomatic flourish — not a political landmine.

When Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the choice of veteran politician Peter Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to the United States, the move was billed as a signal: a seasoned hand to manage one of the UK’s most vital relationships. Within days, however, media reports and public scrutiny reopened old, uncomfortable associations between Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein — the late financier convicted as a sex offender whose name has become shorthand for scandal.

“People expected a steady pair of hands,” said a Labour backbencher who asked not to be named. “Instead they got an unanswered question about judgment and vetting. That stings. It makes people wonder what else was missed.”

What happens if Keir Starmer steps down?

The constitutional choreography that follows a prime minister’s resignation is precise and, in its own way, ritualistic. A resignation would trigger a Labour leadership contest designed to choose a new leader who — by convention — becomes the next prime minister.

Here’s how that process plays out in practice:

Parliamentary threshold: Any prospective candidate must secure the backing of at least 20% of Labour MPs. With Labour currently occupying 404 seats in the House of Commons, that threshold amounts to 81 sponsors.
Grassroots and affiliates: Beyond MPs, candidates must clear further hurdles including support from constituency Labour parties and affiliated organisations such as trade unions.
Unopposed outcome: If only one person clears the thresholds, there is no membership ballot — that candidate simply becomes the leader and, by convention, prime minister.
Membership ballot: If multiple candidates qualify, the party’s members and affiliates cast their votes in a contest that can take weeks to complete. The winner takes the keys to Number 10.

“It’s a deliberately measured system,” said Dr. Aisha Khan, a scholar of British politics. “Labour’s rules distribute power beyond the parliamentary party. That gives rank-and-file members real leverage, but it also means change tends to be slower and messier than in the other major party.”

Fast facts

Labour seats in the Commons: 404
Minimum MP backers required to stand: 20% (currently 81 MPs)
Labour party’s history: in its 125-year existence, the parliamentary wing has never successfully forced a sitting prime minister from office through an internal coup

Can Starmer be challenged without resigning?

Yes — but it’s not as simple as a no-confidence motion. A leadership challenge in Labour’s system is usually triggered by an alternative candidate emerging with enough parliamentary support to meet that 20% bar. Crucially, the sitting leader is automatically included on any ballot.

“Think of it as a competitive audition where the incumbent cannot be excluded,” said a seasoned constitutional adviser. “That protects leaders from purely symbolic uprisings but encourages concrete alternatives: you need a real challenger and a coalition behind them.”

Contrast that with the Conservative Party’s recent turbulence. From 2016 onwards, the Conservatives saw five prime ministers in eight years — a churn driven by lower thresholds and a parliamentary culture accustomed to rapid leadership changes. Labour’s mechanisms were intentionally designed to avoid that sort of whiplash.

Why Labour’s rules make ousting a leader hard

There’s a reason Labour MPs have never successfully removed a sitting prime minister in more than a century: the party’s design places significant power in the hands of its wider membership and affiliated organisations. That structure safeguards the leader from purely parliamentary rebellions, but it also means discontent must coalesce into an organised, rule-compliant challenge.

“You can’t simply say ‘no’ anymore,” laughed an exasperated former minister. “You have to say ‘yes, to someone else’, and then persuade the unions, the CLPs, the members — and do it fast.”

Even Tony Blair, who faced a wave of resignations in 2006, left only after setting a timetable for his departure; he did not fall overnight. The precedent underscores an awkward truth: the mechanisms that protect party cohesion can also prolong uncertainty.

Voices from the street and the experts

In an Islington café near a red-brick terrace, locals watched the headlines scroll across the television as they sipped flat whites. “It feels like being back in the era of secret handshakes and old boys,” said Maria Ochieng, a community organiser. “We vote for transparency and we deserve it. Ambassadors can’t be lightning rods.”

Across the Atlantic, Washington insiders were alert but measured. “Diplomacy depends on credibility,” said a retired British ambassador now living in the US. “If an appointee brings baggage that undermines public standing in either capital, that’s a problem. Not every controversy disqualifies someone, but reputational risk can be contagious.”

Labour-affiliated union leaders were more blunt. “Members expect accountability,” said a union official. “A failure to properly vet a senior appointment is a failure of leadership. We’ll be demanding answers — not just to deflect, but to restore trust.”

What does this mean beyond Westminster?

This episode won’t be contained to the corridors of British power. For allies and adversaries alike, questions about judgment, process and vetting echo into areas of foreign policy and international partnerships. An embassy is more than a building; it is a symbol. When the appointment of an ambassador becomes an internal crisis, it complicates the message the country sends overseas.

More broadly, the controversy taps into global anxieties about accountability in public life. Around the world, voters are demanding clearer, faster mechanisms to hold leaders to account — yet they are also wary of governance systems that encourage instability. How do democracies balance steadiness with responsiveness? That is the knot Labour must untie.

Where do we go from here?

At the moment, the ball is in two courts at once: Starmer’s decisions and the party’s response. If he resigns, the leadership contest will be an institutional marathon requiring 81 parliamentary sponsors to start the race, and possibly months of campaigning among the party’s members and affiliates. If challengers coalesce, the contest will enforce a choice rather than a no-confidence shrug.

“This is a test of political judgement as much as it is of process,” said Dr. Khan. “The public will be watching how transparent the review is and whether the party learns. That’s what will determine whether this episode becomes a brief squall or a long-term wound.”

So ask yourself: when politics gets messy, do you want speed and spectacle or deliberation and stability? And who, ultimately, decides which matters more? The answer will shape more than a party’s leadership; it will shape the future of how democracies reckon with crisis.

Heshiis laga gaaray weerarkii Garyare iyo Dayx ay ku qaadeen Maareeye Abdinasir Gureey

By

aden

-

February 9, 2026

Feb 09(Jowhar)-Waxaa hishiis laga gaaray dhibkii dhawaan Hotel Paradise ku dhexmaray Senator Abdiweli Garyare, Xildhibaan Dayax Omar oo dhinac ah iyo Maareeye Abdinasir Gureey iyo Dr, Mohamed Baldho Dhinaca kale ahaa.

Continue

Labada Gole oo soo gabagabeeyay ka doodista cutubka afaraad ee Dastuurka KMG ah

By

Mahad

-

February 9, 2026

Feb 09(Jowhar)-Mudanayaasha labada Aqal ee Baarlamaanka Jamhuuriyadda Federaalka Soomaaliya ayaa maanta xarunta Golaha Shacabka ku yeeshay kalfadhiga 7-aad kulankiisa 12-aad ee wadajirka ah, waxaana shir guddoominayey Guddoomiye kuxigeenka koowaad ee Golaha Aqalka sare

Continue

Top Hamas official refuses to disarm or accept foreign control

By

hanad

-

February 9, 2026

Senior Hamas leader rejects disarmament or 'foreign rule' — Hamas's foreign affairs chief and former Political Bureau head Khaled Mashal speaking in Doha

Gaza at the Crossroads: Weapons, Aid, and the Question of Who Will Rule the Rubble

At the Rafah crossing, beneath a sky that sometimes tastes like dust and diesel, children cling to the hands of exhausted parents while buses ease forward in a slow, fragile ballet. Their faces tell a story of hunger and hope, of nights interrupted by blasts and days measured now by whether a truck brings medicine, clean water, or bread.

“We just want our lives back,” said Mariam, a mother of three pushing a stroller through the heat. “But we also want to decide for ourselves how to live. When a foreigner tells you what to do in your home, it feels like more of the same.”

“As Long as There Is Occupation, There Is Resistance”

From the conference halls of Doha, one of the old voices of Hamas spoke in a language designed to leave no ambiguity. Khaled Meshal, who once led the movement in exile, pushed back publicly against what he called the twin demands of disarmament and outside governance.

“Criminalising the resistance, its weapons, and those who carried it out is something we should not accept,” he told delegates. “As long as there is occupation, there is resistance. Resistance is a right of peoples under occupation … something nations take pride in.”

The three-line thrust of that message — no disarmament, no foreign guardianship, sovereignty first — is now the fulcrum upon which a fragile ceasefire turns. It is also the core tension between a battered population trying to rebuild and international actors insisting that guns must be taken off the streets.

Why Weapons Matter — and Why They Frighten Everyone

For many Gazans, weapons are not primarily instruments of aggression but of memory. They are visible proof of years of blockade, incursions, and a sense that there was and is no one else who would protect them. “My brother fought because he had to,” said Youssef, a teacher who lost his home in the shelling. “On the day the tanks came, there was nothing else. Do you think we would choose this life? We choose survival.”

For Israelis and much of the international community, the equation is different: weapons in Gaza represent a security threat that must be neutralised to prevent future attacks. Officials in Jerusalem and Washington have framed a post-conflict paradigm in which demilitarisation is the price of peace and reconstruction.

Those two logics — survival and security — are not easily reconciled. To complicate matters, Israeli officials estimate Hamas still fields roughly 20,000 fighters and holds some 60,000 Kalashnikovs in Gaza. Whether those numbers are precise or approximate, they underscore why disarmament remains a top demand in diplomatic corridors.

The Ceasefire, Phase Two, and a Board That Worries Many

The US-brokered ceasefire entered what diplomats call its second phase: a plan that foresees not just a halt to active hostilities but the demilitarisation of Gaza coupled with a phased Israeli withdrawal. The fine print — who handles the weapons, who governs the transition, who ensures aid reaches the needy — has produced a dizzying array of proposals and anxieties.

One of the most controversial is the “Board of Peace,” unveiled at a global summit in Davos and championed by figures from several countries. Alongside it sits a Gaza Executive Board — an advisory body intended to counsel a newly formed Palestinian technocratic committee set up to manage daily governance in the strip. High-profile names have been attached to its membership, stirring critics who fear the initiative could sideline or rival the United Nations.

“There’s a real concern that this could turn into external guardianship, dressed up in technocratic language,” said Lina Haddad, a Palestinian governance expert based in Beirut. “Reconstruction is not just about bricks and roads — it’s about authority, legitimacy, and who sets the rules.”

Voices on the Ground

The people filling Gaza’s crowded shelters and damaged neighborhoods have their own calculus. “If they tell us to hand over every weapon, who will stop the next incursion?” asked Mahmoud, a grocer who watched his shop reduced to rubble. “We are tired of being told we can’t protect ourselves.”

Others are more pragmatic. “We need hospitals, water, schools,” said Rasha, a nurse at a Red Cross facility. “If a plan can bring real aid and keep us safe, maybe there are ways to put weapons under the control of a Palestinian authority — if that authority is truly Palestinian.”

That sentence — “truly Palestinian” — is the hinge of the debate. Hamas has hinted that it might consider transferring arms to a future Palestinian governing body; but Meshal’s Doha remarks reiterated a red line: no foreign rule, no external trusteeship, no “logic of guardianship.”

Options on the Table

The possibilities are messy and political. They include:

Complete disarmament enforced by an international or regional force — opposed by Hamas and many Gazans.
Transfer of weapons to a Palestinian security apparatus — contingent on who controls that apparatus and their legitimacy.
Hybrid models where heavy weaponry is demilitarised while small arms are regulated locally — complicated to police in a densely populated strip of 2.2 million people.

Experts Weigh In

“Any sustainable arrangement needs local buy-in,” said Andrew Cole, an international conflict resolution scholar. “Forcible demilitarisation risks sparking the very cycles it seeks to end. But leaving militant structures intact risks endless violence. The challenge is designing institutions that can hold both security and legitimacy.”

The scale of the humanitarian crisis makes the stakes especially urgent. Gaza’s roughly 2.2 million residents are in desperate need of reconstruction and basic services. Donors and international actors argue they cannot commit funds until they are assured of a secure environment; Palestinians argue that security cannot be imposed from the outside without undermining sovereignty.

What Happens Next—And What It Means for the World

So where does that leave the rest of us, halfway around the globe, reading headlines and shaping opinions from afar? Perhaps with an uncomfortable question: when does an external intervention intended to create peace become another form of control? And who, in a moment of ruin, has the right to speak for the survivors?

“We have seen rebuilding plans before,” observed Mariam, the mother at Rafah, watching a convoy of aid trucks pass. “But if you rebuild our houses and not our voice, what have you done?”

The issue of weapons is not merely tactical; it is existential. It is about dignity, safety, and who will decide the rules of life in Gaza. As diplomats haggle and boards convene, the people living amid the rubble will be the ones to inherit — or resist — whatever order emerges.

Will the world find a solution that balances security with self-determination? Or will the question of arms become the next flare-up in a long catalogue of grievances? For now, the buses at Rafah keep moving, the children keep watching the horizon, and the debate about the future of Gaza — its weapons, governance, and soul — continues to unfold in the shadow of international diplomacy.

8 Wadan oo si adag uga hor-timid qorshaha Israel ay ku qabsaneyso Daanta Galbeed

By

aden

-

February 9, 2026

Feb 09(Jowhar)-Dalalka Urdun, Imaaraadka, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkiga, Sacuudiga, Qatar iyo Masar ayaa cambaareeyay tallaabooyinka Israel ee kudoonayso qabsashada Daanta Galbeed iyo ballaarinta degsiimooyinka ee dhulka Falastiin.

Continue

Patriots left reeling as Seahawks’ defense clinches Super Bowl victory

By

hanad

-

February 9, 2026

Patriots pain as Seahawks ice Super Bowl with defence — The Seattle Seahawks put on a defensive masterclass in Santa Clara

A Night of Roaring Defense: How the Seahawks Silenced New England in Santa Clara

Levi’s Stadium felt less like a building tonight and more like a cathedral of noise, the kind that makes your chest buzz and your teeth hum. Blue and green scarves fluttered above a sea of coats; a few die-hards had painted faces and flasks tucked into their gloves. Across the concourse, a smaller, stoic band of Patriots faithful wore their navy like armor, faces set, voices steady. When the final whistle blew, it wasn’t the offense that dominated the headlines—it was a defense that refused to let a modern passing attack breathe.

Seattle claimed its second Super Bowl title in emphatic fashion, handing the New England Patriots a 29-13 defeat that felt less like a close game and more like an extended lesson in how to execute pressure, turnover creation, and situational brilliance. The quarterback in New England, Drake Maye, was battered—sacked six times—and his night was marred by two interceptions and a brutal fumble that Uchenna Nwosu turned into a 45-yard touchdown return. The scoreboard read 29-13, but the story was written in tackles for loss, hurried throws, and an old-school defensive swagger.

First Half: A Quiet Storm

The Seahawks didn’t blitz into the lead like a thunderclap; they set the tempo and let the storm build. Jason Myers kicked a 33-yard field goal on Seattle’s opening drive and followed it with a string of precise attempts that kept points on the board when touchdowns were elusive. By halftime the Patriots had managed just 52 yards—an astonishingly small number for a team that had used the passing game so effectively all season.

“We told our guys the game would be decided up front,” said a Seahawks defensive leader after the match. “Pressure isn’t just about sacks. It’s about timing, body position, and knowing when to close the door. Tonight we slammed that door.”

New England’s night unraveled under that consistent pressure. Maye’s jersey bore more grass than clean space; each rush to the edge seemed to shorten his playing field and expand the Seahawks’ confidence. The Patriots’ first five drives ended in punts and frustration as Seattle’s defensive front manipulated gaps, set traps, and forced throws into traffic.

Turnovers Turn the Tide

Turnovers are cruel and clean: they leave no gray area. The first big swing came when Maye’s shoes couldn’t keep him upright—one sack forced a fumble, which Seattle recovered and turned into their first touchdown of the night: a 16-yard strike from Sam Darnold to AJ Barner that felt like a release valve letting out months of playoff pressure. That score, followed by more field goals from Myers, put the Seahawks comfortably in front.

Then came the play that will live on social media highlight reels for years: Nwosu’s hands finding the loose ball and sprinting 45 yards to the end zone. The stadium erupted—a sound like a chain reaction. Even a Bud Light post that showed the play and the celebration became one of the night’s viral moments, a small reminder of how sports and culture intersect in the smartphone era.

“I saw the ball pop up and my instincts took over,” Nwosu told a sideline reporter, breathing hard and grinning. “I just wanted to bring it home for our guys.”

Jason Myers: The Quiet Kicker Who Rained Points

Myers was a metronome. Five successful field goals told a story of a team that could rely on its kicker when drives stalled. Those 15 points from field goals—bookended by two explosive defensive touchdowns—made up a significant portion of Seattle’s final 29. Tonight he broke Super Bowl records for field goals in a single game, a stat that will find its way into highlight boxes and trivia nights.

“People love the glory plays, but tonight was all about doing your job,” Myers said simply. “When the defense gives us the ball, or when they make it hard to get in the end zone, we have to take what’s there.”

Was This a Blueprint?

In an era that prizes aerial fireworks and offensive novelty, Seattle’s victory felt like a counterargument. Here were defenders reading the quarterback, reacting with speed and conviction, and making every pass feel unsafe. Maye, who finished second in the season MVP voting, simply didn’t have space to operate. Facing 20 postseason sacks for the season—a new, uncomfortable milestone for any franchise—New England’s young star learned the old lesson: timing and protection matter as much as arm talent.

“You can’t discount preparedness,” said an NFL analyst watching from the press box. “Seattle prepared for this matchup. Their pass rush, coverage schemes, and situational discipline were elite. It’s a reminder that defense hasn’t died—it’s just evolved.”

Voices from the Crowd

After the game, the air outside Levi’s hummed with a mixture of elation and resignation. A Seahawks fan named Miguel, who’d traveled from Portland with a backpack full of flags, laughed into a warm cup of coffee.

“We’ve dreamt of nights like this for years,” he said. “It’s not just a win—this is family, this is our town. Watching these dudes play like that? It’s everything.”

Across the plaza, a young Patriots supporter, Emily, wiped away tears but managed a smile. “You respect a team that executes. Tonight they were better. That hurts, yeah—but we’ll come back.”

What This Means Beyond the Box Score

Sports are never just scores. They’re rituals, identity markers, and weekly opportunities to belong to something bigger. Seattle’s defense-dominated win speaks to a larger societal appetite for grit over flash, for teams that grind rather than simply dazzle. This game will be dissected in coaches’ film rooms, kicked around in sports bars, and argued about on podcasts. But the underlying lesson is simple: pressure changes outcomes.

How will teams respond? Will franchises invest more in offensive lines, change their play-calling, or double down on mobile quarterbacks? The ripple effects of this night will be felt in draft rooms and training camps for months to come.

After the Confetti: Looking Forward

As the confetti fell and players hugged each other in exhausted joy, the larger narratives of the league also shifted. Kenneth Walker, named the Super Bowl MVP and the first running back to take that honor in 28 years, will find his name etched into franchise lore. The Patriots, a program built on quarterback brilliance and meticulous execution, will head back to the drawing board with a painful but clear checklist: protect the quarterback, limit turnovers, and find ways to extend drives against elite pass rushes.

For the neutral fan, for the person who loves the game’s drama more than allegiance, tonight was a reminder: defenses can still change the world. They can flip momentum, rewrite history, and create images—like a defensive end racing down a sideline with the ball in one hand—that last longer than any advertising campaign.

So I’ll ask you, reader: when was the last time a defense made you jump from your seat? And what will you remember most from a night when Seattle’s blue and green marched in step, refusing to yield until the final horn? In sports—and in life—sometimes the loudest statements are made in the quiet discipline of doing the small things well.

Soomaaliya iyo Jarmalka oo ka wada hadlay danaha ka dhaxeeya labada dal iyo qodobo kale

By

aden

-

February 9, 2026

Feb 09(Jowhar)-Ra’iisul Wasaaraha Xukuumadda Jamhuuriyadda Federaalka Soomaaliya, Mudane Xamsa Cabdi Barre, ayaa xafiiskiisa kulan kula yeeshay wafdi uu hoggaaminayo Wasiiru Dowlaha Iskaashiga Dhaqaalaha iyo Horumarinta ee Dowladda Jarmalka Mudane Niels Annen, iyo Safiirka Jamhuuriyadda Jarmalka Mudane Sebastian Groth, waxa ayna si qotodheer uga wada hadleen danaha ka dhaxeeya labada dal iyo qodobo kale.

Continue