ウクライナをどう非武装化したと言うのか。実際、ウクライナを武装化させたではないか

プリゴジン氏は24日、自身のテレグラムに投稿した約１時間のインタビューで、ウクライナ軍の戦いぶりを称賛しつつ、プーチン大統領ら政権幹部が戦争を正当化するため掲げたウクライナの「非ナチ化、非武装化」の目標を酷評。「われわれが主張した非ナチ化がウクライナを正当化し、ウクライナを全世界に知られる国にした」と述べ、「ウクライナをどう非武装化したと言うのか。実際、ウクライナを武装化させたではないか。ウクライナは今や、世界最強の軍を持つ国の一つだ」と続けた。 https://www.bloomberg.co.jp/news/articles/2023-05-24/RV69SDDWLU6801

太陽光パネル発電もうすでに「微々たる」ものとは言えない重要な発電源となっています。

日本の太陽光パネル発電量は国内総発電量の１０％を占めています。石炭による発電量が２９％なので、石炭による総発電量の３分の１にあたる発電量を太陽光パネルはすでに供給していることになります。LNGも３０％なので、LNGによる総発電量の３分の１にあたる発電量を太陽光パネルは供給しています。原子力発電の占める量は4.8％なので、その二倍以上の発電量を太陽光パネルは供給しています。つまり、太陽光パネル発電もうすでに「微々たる」ものとは言えない重要な発電源となっています。 https://www.isep.or.jp/archives/library/14364#:~:text=%E3%81%9D%E3%81%AE%E7%B5%90%E6%9E%9C%E3%80%812022%E5%B9%B4(%E6%9A%A6%E5%B9%B4,%E5%9B%B31%2C%20%E8%A1%A81)%E3%80%82&text=MISSING%3A%20summary%20MISSING%3A%20current%2Drows.

IRI Ukraine Poll Shows Strong Confidence in President Zelensky, a Surge in Support for NATO Membership, Russia Should Pay for Reconstruction

Kyiv, Ukraine – The latest public opinion survey in Ukraine conducted by the International Republican Institute’s (IRI) Center for Insights in Survey Research (CISR) shows sustained confidence in President Zelensky, a surge in support for NATO membership, and a strong desire for Russia to pay for post-war reconstruction. View Full Survey Report When asked about the activities of President Zelensky, 91% approved of his performance. Ninety-seven percent of Ukrainians believe they will win the war against Russia and 74% believe Ukraine will maintain all territories from within its internationally recognized borders defined in 1991. “Even after a year of relentless attacks from the criminal regime in Moscow, Ukrainians continue to rally behind their wartime leader, President Zelensky,” said Stephen Nix, IRI’s Senior Director for Eurasia. “Vladimir Putin has not only failed to dent their resolve, he’s hardened Ukrainian support for winning the war without any territorial concessions,” said Nix. The poll also showed that support for joining NATO has increased. Eighty-two percent would support joining NATO if a referendum were held today. That is an increase of ten percentage points from a poll in June 2022 and an increase of 23 percentage points from April 2022. Ukrainians believe that Russia should pay for any postwar reconstruction. Eighty-nine percent said that Russian seized assets or payments should finance damaged infrastructure. Further, 54% feel that reconstruction decisions should be made by the citizens of affected cities and towns while 37% support local elected authorities making those decisions. “Ukrainians are steadfast in their belief that Russia should pay for the damage they have caused,” said Nix. “They are also confident that their fellow citizens and local authorities will make the best decisions on how to rebuild their cities and towns when the war is over.” Methodology   The survey was conducted by the Sociological Group “Rating” on behalf of the Center for Insights in Survey Research of the International Republican Institute throughout Ukraine (except for the in the occupied territories of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts) from February 1-5th, 2023, through computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) based on a random sample of mobile phone numbers.​ The total sample consists of n= 2,000 Ukrainians aged 18 and older.  The sample excludes any Ukrainians not currently in Ukraine.​ The survey data obtained was weighted by regional and age indicators using data by the State Statistics Service of Ukraine as of January 1, 2021.  The margin of error at the 95 percent confidence level does not exceed 2 percentage points for the full sample.​ The response rate was 16 percent.  The study was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).  https://www.iri.org/news/iri-ukraine-poll-shows-strong-confidence-in-president-zelensky-a-surge-in-support-for-nato-membership-russia-should-pay-for-reconstruction/

変態男が女性の裸をちょっと見たいぐらいの理由で、簡単にできることではありません

「多くの変態男が「自称女性です」って女性専用に入って来ます」 まずないです。少数派を認めることのできない時代錯誤の古い頭のおじいさんたちの言い訳にすぎません。そもそも、男性として生まれた人が女性であると認められるためには、医学的かつ法的手続きが必要です。生殖能力を永久的に失わせる不可逆的な外科手術「性別適合手術」（男性から女性の場合ちんちんの切除など）も行われます。変態男が女性の裸をちょっと見たいぐらいの理由で、簡単にできることではありません。 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn1P1ENnuD4&lc=UgxRL17zfBuH9fdWpRp4AaABAg.9prnBwwzIup9ptJfyvn-fm

自民党の支持層でも、57.2％がLGBT理解増進法を「成立させるべきだ」と答えている

時事通信が3月に行った世論調査によると、LGBTなど性的少数者に対する理解増進法案を今国会で「成立させるべきだ」と答えたのは50.8％。「成立させるべきだと思わない」と回答した16.9％を大幅に上回っている。自民党支持者の間でも、「成立させるべきだ」は46.6％にのぼり、「成立させるべきだと思わない」と答えた21.1％の2倍以上だった。また、産経新聞社とFNNが2月18、19両日に行った合同世論調査によると、慎重論が根強い自民党の支持層でも、57.2％がLGBT理解増進法を「成立させるべきだ」と答えている。他の多くの世論調査でも、LGBT法案や同性婚に過半数が賛成している。 https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/9d9c670974d986301c5787f162d1bb5cb5c61f2d?page=3 産経新聞社とＦＮＮ（フジニュースネットワーク）が１８、１９両日に行った合同世論調査で、ＬＧＢＴなど性的少数者への理解増進を図る法案について尋ねたところ、慎重論が根強い自民党の支持層でも５７・２％が「（国会で）成立させるべきだ」と答えた。同性婚を法律で認めることにも自民支持層の６０・３％が「賛成」と回答した。年代別では、高齢層より若年層が、性別では男性より女性の方が同法案の成立や同性婚の法制化を積極的に認める傾向が強く出た。 性的少数者に関する法案を成立させるべきか聞いたところ、立憲民主党支持層の６８・１％、日本維新の会支持層の７４・８％、無党派層（「支持政党はない」と回答）の６７・１％が「成立させるべきだ」と答えた。 法案は令和３年に超党派の議員連盟が中心となってまとめたが、「性的指向および性自認を理由とする差別は許されない」との表現が不明確などとして自民内で反対論が高まり、党内了承を見送った経緯がある。 法案は立民、維新、共産党など野党のほか、与党の公明党も賛成している。ただ、内心に関わる「性自認」や、定義が不明確な「差別」の禁止など法案には課題が多い。自民支持層の３２・６％は「（国会で）成立させなくてもよい」と慎重な考えを持っている。 同性婚の法制化に関しては、立民支持層の７４・０％、維新支持層の８６・９％、無党派層の７６・３％が賛成した。反対と答えたのは自民支持層で２９・３％、立民支持層で２０・５％、維新支持層で１０・６％、無党派層で１３・５％だった。 性別では、性的少数者に関する法案を「成立させるべきだ」と答えたのは男性６２・４％、女性６５・７％だった。一方、同性婚の法制化に賛成したのは男性６５・０％、女性７６・７％と男女で差が生じた。 年代別では、法案について６０代までは６～７割が「成立させるべきだ」を選んだが、７０歳以上は４８・６％と半数を割った。 https://www.sankei.com/article/20230220-PQDZSMO6ORMX5GHJ5BHHAZOCGM/ サンケイとFNNの合同世論調査によれば、 　自民党支持層の57.2% 　立憲民主党支持層の68.1% 　日本維新の会支持層の74.8% 　無党派層の67.1% が今国会で成立させるべきと回答。 男女別では、 　男性62.4% 　女性65.7% が成立させるべきと回答。

民事訴訟では、刑事訴訟と違って、「疑う余地のない証拠」ではなく「明確で説得力のある証拠」（いわゆる「証拠の優位性」）が求められます。

まずこれは刑事訴訟ではなく民事訴訟であることを知っておく必要があります。民事訴訟では、刑事訴訟と違って、「疑う余地のない証拠」ではなく「明確で説得力のある証拠」（いわゆる「証拠の優位性」）が求められます。 性的暴行に関する判決では、事件があった時、そのことをすぐに相談した人が複数いた。それらの証言がほぼ一致した。同時に、被告人（トランプ）の証言にはうそがありそれがばれた。さらにトランプ氏が「（自分のように）スターになれば、女は何でもさせてくれる。あそこにも触らせてくれる」と語っているテープが公開され、そのことについてそういう事実があるのかどうかを聞かれ、事実であることを自ら証言した。（その証言の仕方も自分を不利にする内容だった。）そしてそれらが、今回証言に立った複数の女性たちに対するトランプの行動のパターンの一致が見られた。つまり原告側の証言には非常に高い説得力（証拠の優位性）が認められた。そして２００万ドル超の賠償命令が下されました。 名誉棄損に関する判決では、被告人（トランプ）がしばしば原告に関して「彼女は嘘つきである」と公言していましたが、その内容を証明する、つまり彼女が嘘つきであるということを明確で説得力のある証拠を提示することができなかったため、何の証拠もないのに誹謗中傷したことが認められました。そしてこの名誉棄損に関しては２７０万ドル超の賠償命令が下されました。 両方合わせて日本円で６億７千万円を超える賠償命令です。 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnTgKb5QHYs 万

What Carroll had to prove

This is not a criminal trial. In a civil suit like Carroll’s, the jury had to determine whether Carroll’s legal team proved that Trump committed battery against Carroll by a preponderance of the evidence. While the jury found that Trump sexually abused her, sufficient to hold him liable for battery, the jury did not find that Carroll proved he raped her. To prove her defamation claim, the jury had to find that Carroll’s legal team proved by the preponderance of the evidence that Trump knew it was false when he published the statement about Carroll last year and knowingly exposed her to public ridicule. They also had to determine that she proved by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was false, and that Trump made the statement with actual malice. Both the preponderance of the evidence standard and the clear and convincing evidence standard are not as high a standard as proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is used in criminal cases. Clear and convincing evidence is higher than preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not. Clear and convincing evidence leaves no substantial doubt in the juror’s mind and establishes that the proposition is highly probable. The jury had to be unanimous to reach a verdict but could have reached a different verdict on each of the two claims – battery and defamation. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/carroll-trump-jury-deliberations/index.html 自動翻訳： これは刑事裁判ではありません。 キャロルのような民事訴訟では、陪審員は、キャロルの弁護団がトランプがキャロルに対して暴行を加えたことを証拠の優勢によって証明したかどうかを判断しなければならなかった。 陪審員は、トランプが彼女を性的に虐待したことを発見しましたが、彼にバッテリーの責任を負わせるのに十分でしたが、陪審員は、キャロルが彼女をレイプしたことを証明したことを発見しませんでした. 彼女の名誉毀損の主張を立証するために、陪審員は、キャロルの弁護団が、トランプが昨年キャロルに関する声明を発表し、故意に彼女を公の嘲笑にさらしたときに、それが虚偽であることを知っていたことを証拠の優勢によって証明したことを見つけなければなりませんでした. 彼らはまた、声明が虚偽であり、トランプが実際の悪意を持って声明を出したことを明確かつ説得力のある証拠によって彼女が証明したことを決定しなければなりませんでした. 証拠基準の優位性と明確で説得力のある証拠基準のどちらも、刑事事件で使用される合理的な疑いを超えた証拠ほど高い基準ではありません。 明確で説得力のある証拠は、証拠の優勢よりも高く、つまり、そうでないよりも可能性が高いことを意味します。 明確で説得力のある証拠は、陪審員の心に実質的な疑いを残さず、命題が非常に可能性が高いことを立証します. 陪審員は評決に達するために満場一致でなければなりませんでしたが、バッテリーと名誉毀損の 2 つの主張のそれぞれについて異なる評決に達した可能性があります。

北方中国の仙人洞という洞窟では２万年前の土器が発見されており、いまのところ、それが世界で一番古い土器です。縄文土器ではありません。

北方中国の仙人洞という洞窟では２万年前の土器が発見されており、いまのところ、それが世界で一番古い土器です。縄文土器ではありません。

Asked to Delete References to Racism From Her Book, an Author Refused

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/06/books/scholastic-book-racism-maggie-tokuda-hall.html The case, involving Scholastic, led to an outcry among authors and became an example of how the culture wars behind a surge in book banning in schools has reached publishers. Alexandra AlterElizabeth A. Harris By Alexandra Alter and Elizabeth A. Harris Published May 6, 2023 Updated May 8, 2023 It was the most personal story that Maggie Tokuda-Hall had ever written: the tale of how her grandparents met and fell in love at an incarceration camp in Idaho that held Japanese Americans during World War II. The book, called “Love in the Library,” is aimed at 6- to 9-year-olds. Published last year by a small children’s publisher, Candlewick Press, it drew glowing reviews, but sales were modest. So Tokuda-Hall was thrilled when Scholastic, a publishing giant that distributes books and resources in 90 percent of schools, said last month it wanted to license her book for use in classrooms. When Tokuda-Hall read the details of the offer, she felt deflated — then outraged. Scholastic wanted her to delete references to racism in America from her author’s note, in which she addresses readers directly. The decision was wrenching, Tokuda-Hall said, but she turned Scholastic down and went public, describing her predicament in a blog post and a Twitter post that drew more than five million views. Tokuda-Hall’s revelations sparked an outcry among children’s book authors and brought intense scrutiny to the editorial process of the world’s largest children’s publisher. The blowup came at a time when culture wars are fueling efforts to ban books in schools — particularly books on race or sexuality — and raising questions about whether already published works should be re-edited to remove potentially offensive content. “We all see what’s happening with this rising culture of book bans,” Tokuda-Hall said. “If we all know that the largest children’s publisher in the country, the one with the most access to schools, is capitulating behind closed doors and asking authors to change their works to accommodate those kinds of demands, there’s no way you as a marginalized author can find an audience.” Scholastic moved quickly to contain the fallout. It apologized to Tokuda-Hall and the illustrator, Yas Imamura, and offered to publish the book with the original author’s note. Tokuda-Hall turned them down, saying that she was not convinced by the company’s efforts. The company also delayed production of the collection that would have included “Love in the Library,” which was likely to include around 150 books by or about Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, while they evaluate what went wrong. [photo description] A cover of a children's book, with the title, Love in the Library, at the top, over an image of a couple looking at each other in a library. The book was the most personal Tokuda-Hall had ever written: It told the story of her grandparents, who met at an incarceration camp for Japanese Americans during World War II.Credit...Maggie Tokuda-Hall, Illustrations by Yas Imamura. Candlewick Press [photo description] A tear sheet showing edited text, with some lines scratched out in red. Scholastic asked Tokuda-Hall to delete parts of her author’s note, in which she connected past bigotry against Japanese Americans to other manifestations of racism past and present. In the case of Tokuda-Hall’s book, Scholastic’s proposed edits included deleting a sentence where she contextualized her grandparents’ experience as part of “the deeply American tradition of racism.” The company also asked for the removal of a paragraph connecting bigotry against Japanese Americans to current and past manifestations of racism, in which Tokuda-Hall describes a culture that “allows the police to murder Black people” and “keeps children in cages on our border.” In an email to Tokuda-Hall, which was shared with The Times, Candlewick conveyed Scholastic’s request and the company’s concern that schools might shy away from purchasing a book with such a frank comment about racism during this “especially politically sensitive” moment. On Amazon and Goodreads, some readers have complained that Tokuda-Hall’s message is too political for its young audience. Shortly after Tokuda-Hall posted about the incident on April 12, several authors and educators who were brought on by Scholastic to consult on and curate the series that would have included Tokuda-Hall’s book condemned the company’s actions, and demanded an overhaul of the editorial process. One of the authors who consulted on the collection, Sayantani DasGupta, resigned in protest. “They’re pre-emptively censoring the collection, saying, ‘Hey, we’re going to put out diverse stories, but we’re only going to put them out in the most palatable form’,” DasGupta said. Similar controversies have arisen recently around efforts to remove discussions of racism from school textbooks. One textbook publisher, Studies Weekly, faced criticism after it revised an elementary school textbook so that Rosa Parks’s story no longer included references to segregation or race. But many were shocked to hear that a leading commercial publisher like Scholastic was seeking such revisions. More than 650 librarians and educators, who make up a large segment of Scholastic’s customer base, sent a petition to Scholastic demanding that the company release the book in its original form and “take public responsibility for the decision to censor a book.” Jillian Heise, an elementary school librarian in Wisconsin who organized the petition, said that the original author’s note was something that young children — many of whom experience racism in their daily lives — could grapple with. “Kids are capable of understanding at a simple level that when we treat people differently because of who they are, or how they identify, or what they look like, that that’s not fair,” she said. That conversation, she continued, “helps their self-perception and perception of the world develop with empathy.”

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - 扇動的陰謀

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - 扇動的陰謀 いずれかの州、準州、または合衆国の管轄下にある場所で、2 人以上の者が共謀して、合衆国政府を転覆、鎮圧、または力ずくで破壊する、または彼らに対して戦争を仕掛ける場合、 強制的にその権限に反対すること、または強制的に米国の法律の執行を妨害、妨害、または遅延させること、または強制的に米国の権限に反して米国の財産を押収、取得、または所有すること 、彼らはそれぞれ、この称号に基づいて罰金を科されるか、20年以下の懲役、またはその両方を科されるものとします。 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

Realizing a Free and Open Indo-Pacific

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/realizing-vision-of-free-and-open-indo-pacific-by-abe-shinzo-2022-09?barrier=accesspaylog Realizing a Free and Open Indo-Pacific Sep 26, 2022ABE SHINZŌ Less than a month before he was assassinated, Japan’s longest-serving prime minister set out his vision for the region. He buttressed his case by comparing China’s growing threats against Taiwan to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. ----- TOKYO – The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has drastically changed the global security environment and posed serious challenges to Japan’s security policy. The invasion of Ukraine, an independent state, is a clear violation of international law and is absolutely intolerable. Initially, some experts, like think-tankers in the United States, predicted that the capital city, Kyiv, would fall within a few days, yet the Ukrainian government and people have remained resolute in their fight to defend their homeland. Ukraine stood its ground against the great power, Russia. Adherence to the basic principle of “defending the homeland,” accompanied by Western countries’ large-scale military and financial assistance to the Ukrainians and imposition of economic sanctions on Russia, soon brought about a major change in the course of the war. Did Russian President Vladimir Putin ever predict that Japan, the US, and Europe – a coalition of the willing that shares the fundamental values of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law – would unite to assist Ukraine? Russia’s invasion attests to the extreme difficulty a single state can face in protecting its territory and its people’s lives and property by itself. As such, it is not unrelated to the security environment surrounding Japan. During my first administration, in 2007, in an address to the Indian Parliament entitled “The Confluence of the Two Seas,” I departed from the “Asia-Pacific” idea and introduced a new geopolitical concept that envisaged the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean as one “free sea.” Bearing in mind China’s efforts to become a military superpower, I also sought cooperation with countries in Asia that shared basic values, as well as an alignment between Japan, the US, Australia, and India. Unfortunately, the US initially took a cautious stance in consideration of China’s stance at the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear development, which were then underway. India, attentive to its tradition of non-alignment, stayed on the sidelines. Nonetheless, with the support of Australian Prime Minister John Howard, I succeeded in realizing a high-level dialogue among the four states (informally known as the Quad). Then, in 2016, during my second administration, I formally announced the idea of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” at the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) in Nairobi. Later, US President Donald Trump changed the name of the “Pacific Command” to “Indo-Pacific Command,” and the US began to align its military and diplomatic strategy with the strategy advocated by Japan. The Quad foreign ministers’ meeting and the summit meeting were realized, respectively, under my administration and that of Yoshihide Suga. The joint statement issued after Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, US President Joe Biden, Australian Prime Minister Tony Albanese, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a summit in Tokyo on May 24, 2022, articulated the following principles regarding the regional situation in the Indo-Pacific: We will champion adherence to international law, particularly as reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the maintenance of freedom of navigation and overflight, to meet challenges to the maritime rules-based order, including in the East and South China Seas. We strongly oppose any coercive, provocative, or unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo and increase tensions in the area, such as the militarization of disputed features, the dangerous use of coast guard vessels and maritime militia, and efforts to disrupt other countries’ offshore resource exploitation activities. Since the “Confluence of the Two Seas,” I have made known the threat posed by China, and doing so has borne fruit. Even the United Kingdom, France, and Germany have sent naval ships to the Indo-Pacific. It is no exaggeration to say that the concept of a free and open Indo-Pacific has become a major turning point in global security policy. Taiwan is located precisely in the Indo-Pacific. But rising tensions with China are linked to a situation half a world away, in Ukraine. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has several things in common with the tensions between China and Taiwan. First, Russia and China are nuclear powers and permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Second, Ukraine and Taiwan have no military allies. But there is a crucial difference between Ukraine and Taiwan: Ukraine is internationally recognized as an independent state and is a member of the UN. That is why Russia’s invasion has been condemned worldwide as a violation of international law. Taiwan, on the other hand, is not a UN member, and few countries recognize it as a sovereign state. If China advances on Taiwan, its leaders will claim that Taiwan is part of China, and that their actions are an internal matter intended to ensure China’s territorial integrity. It remains to be seen whether countries will unite to assist Taiwan and impose economic sanctions on China, as has been the case in Ukraine. Biden made it clear at a press conference in Japan that his administration would engage militarily to defend Taiwan. In the past, the US had adhered to a policy of “strategic ambiguity,” deliberately not clarifying the extent of its commitment to the defense of Taiwan. But I thought that clearly stating the US commitment would serve as a strong message to deter China from advancing on Taiwan by force. In that sense, I appreciated Biden’s remarks. Backed by its huge economic power, China is expanding its influence in various regions and building military bases at the same time. While Japan, the US, Australia, and India have forged an extremely important framework for countering the threat, it is important to deepen our ties with countries that share our values, including European countries. Japan has a big role to play. It must strengthen its defense capabilities, further deepen its alliance with the US, and realize the vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific. ---- This translation of “A message to the readers of the Japanese edition” by Abe Shinzō, dated June 10, 2022, is the last text Abe wrote before his assassination on July 8. It can be found in the Japanese edition of Indo-Pacific Strategies: Navigating Geopolitics at the Dawn of a New Age.

Report: Israel got intel on Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program from executed spy

https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-israel-got-intel-on-irans-secret-nuclear-weapons-program-from-executed-spy/ Russian intelligence reportedly helped Iran discover that a dual Iranian-British national who once served as its deputy minister of defense was leaking information about its top-secret nuclear weapons program. In January, Tehran hanged Ali Reza Akbari over accusations of espionage, an execution that was harshly denounced by the UK and other Western nations. According to an in-depth New York Times report released on Monday, Akbari was indeed a spy and began leaking Iranian nuclear secrets to the British in 2004 — keeping his activities hidden for 15 years. The report said that in 2008, a senior British intelligence officer told Israeli security officials during a meeting in Tel Aviv that the UK was working with an Iranian spy who had significant information about Tehran’s nuclear activities. Citing “three Western intelligence and national security officials,” the newspaper reported that the UK passed on information from Akbari to Israel about Iran’s nuclear activities at the Fordo site and their ties to the country’s efforts to produce nuclear weapons — information not previously known to Western intelligence officials. Iran has long denied pursuing a nuclear weapon and says its program is for civilian research purposes, but Western officials believe the country was actively pursuing weapons production until at least the early 2000s. In 2019, the NY Times report claims, Iran was aided by “Russian intelligence officials” in pinpointing Akbari as the source of the leak about activities at Fordo. The newspaper wrote that it was not clear how Russia had been able to discover this. This December 11, 2020, satellite photo by Maxar Technologies shows construction at Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility. (Maxar Technologies via AP) Akbari also reportedly turned over the names of around 100 senior Iranian officials to British authorities, including that of Iran’s top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who was killed in November 2020 in an attack that Tehran blames on Israel. Akbari, who ran a private think tank, had not been seen in public since 2019, when he was apparently arrested. He was executed in January after being sentenced to death for “corruption on earth and harming the country’s internal and external security by passing on intelligence,” the website of Iran’s judiciary reported. Iranian state media reported that the 61-year-old Akbari had held high positions in the country’s defense establishment. His posts included deputy minister of defense for foreign affairs and a position in the secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council. Akbari had also been an adviser to the commander of the navy, as well as heading a division at the defense ministry’s research center. Ali Reza Akbari speaks at a meeting to unveil the book ‘National Nuclear Movement,’ in Tehran, Iran, on October 14, 2008. (Davoud Hosseini, Islamic Republic News Agency via AP) In videos released by state media following his execution — which Iran touted as a confession and his family said was forced — Akbari said he was recruited by British intelligence in 2004 with the promise of visas for him and his family. Authorities did not release any details about his trial. Those accused of espionage and other crimes related to national security are usually tried behind closed doors where rights groups say they do not choose their own lawyers and are not allowed to see evidence against them. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said at the time that he was “appalled” by the execution. “This was a callous and cowardly act carried out by a barbaric regime with no respect for the human rights of their own people,” Sunak said in a statement.

A psychologist shares 6 toxic phrases ‘highly narcissistic’ people always use

1. “I don’t want to make this about me, but...” [n]arcissistic people know they shouldn’t dominate the conversation, yet they do it anyway. 2. “I’m sorry you feel that way.” Narcissists have a hard time admitting fault 3. “Why are you doing this to me?” Narcissists have a stunning capacity to shift from being the offender to being the victim 4. “I’m a busy person. I don’t have time for this.” The hallmarks of a narcissist are entitlement, a lack of empathy and the inability to maintain reciprocal relationships 5. “If you ever do wrong by me, I’ll make your life a living hell.” This tactic of dangling menace and the possibility of vengeance is how they create an illusion of power and a sense of fear in you. 6. “It’s not fair.” Narcissists believe there should be a set of rules for them, and separate set of rules for everyone else. When they have to comply, or a consequence is enforced, it’s a reminder that they are not special. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/30/psychologist-shares-toxic-phrases-highly-narcissistic-people-always-use-and-how-to-respond.html