logo
India Strikes Multiple Sites in Pakistan After Kashmir Attack

India Strikes Multiple Sites in Pakistan After Kashmir Attack

Bloomberg06-05-2025

Good morning. India conducted military strikes against 'terrorist camps' in Pakistan. Microsoft releases new Surface devices in a bid to compete with Apple. And Cadillac's new EV is turning heads. Listen to the day's top stories.
India said it carried out a strike on 'terrorist camps' in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, an expected move after it pledged retaliations for a militant attack last month that killed dozens of tourists. Earlier, Pakistan's defense minister told Geo TV that a clash was 'imminent.' India said in a statement early Wednesday that it had not targeted any Pakistani military facilities.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Hate Behind the Chants Heralds Violence
The Hate Behind the Chants Heralds Violence

Wall Street Journal

timean hour ago

  • Wall Street Journal

The Hate Behind the Chants Heralds Violence

Cynthia Ozick recalls the rhythmic bellowing of hatred against Israel that has resounded in the U.S. since Oct. 7, 2023 ('Antisemitism and the Politics of the Chant,' op-ed, June 4). As the murders in Washington and the attack in Boulder, Colo., illustrate, words of hatred have now inspired terrorist deeds. In April 2024, a group of people gathered to chant near Columbia University. There was a vile clarity and frankness to the hatred and support for Hamas evident among them. The chants Ms. Ozick recalls are themselves a call for war to destroy Israel. On the margins of the movement of the past decade there have been even more radical voices. With masks and keffiyehs, the assembled chanted the following:

Trump is playing with fire by deploying troops to Los Angeles
Trump is playing with fire by deploying troops to Los Angeles

Washington Post

timean hour ago

  • Washington Post

Trump is playing with fire by deploying troops to Los Angeles

U.S. history should make any president cautious about deploying troops — whether the National Guard or active-duty personnel — to quell domestic disturbances. One of the events that led to the American Revolution, after all, occurred in Boston in 1770 when British troops deployed in response to anti-tax protests. Rather than putting down an incipient uprising, the Redcoats ignited it by opening fire and killing five protesters in what became known as the Boston Massacre. In the centuries since, U.S. troops have only rarely been employed domestically, and then for purposes both noble (fighting armed white supremacists in the South during Reconstruction) and ignoble (putting down strikes during the Gilded Age). Even though there have been few instances of military personnel being used for crowd control, such deployments have led to notorious tragedies. These include the 1914 Ludlow Massacre (the Colorado National Guard and private security guards attacked striking miners and their families, killing 25 people), the 1932 Bonus Army (U.S. Army troops attacked World War I veterans protesting for expedited benefits, killing two of them) and the 1970 Kent State shootings (the Ohio National Guard opened fire at an anti-Vietnam War rally, killing four students and wounding nine). That troubling history makes clear that President Donald Trump is playing with fire by nationalizing the California National Guard over the objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and sending troops into Los Angeles to deal with protests sparked by the Trump administration's roundups of undocumented immigrants. Yet rather than proceed with the appropriate caution, Trump appears all too eager to foment a clash. In a social media post on Sunday, Trump claimed Los Angeles 'has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals' and was being swarmed by 'violent, insurrectionist mobs.' He was directing federal authorities to 'liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant invasion, and put an end to these Migrant riots.' The president's incendiary rhetoric is baseless. Far from facing a migrant invasion, the United States has recently seen the lowest levels of undocumented border crossings in decades — news that the White House touted on its own website. Violent crime is also falling rapidly across the country, including in Los Angeles. The only emergency is the one that the Trump administration is creating by mandating that Immigration and Customs Enforcement make a minimum of 3,000 arrests a day, up from an average of 660 arrests a day during the first 100 days of Trump's second term. There is no way to meet those kinds of arbitrary quotas by focusing only on criminals and gang members who deserve deportation. So ICE has taken to using paramilitary force to round up day laborers in Home Depot parking lots. These are people working to support their families and contributing to the economy, so it is little wonder that the ICE raids have led to protests and pushback. Sending the National Guard into Los Angeles has predictably heightened the anger of protesters and led to violent clashes with police and troops. Unfortunately, some protesters are playing into Trump's hands by committing acts of violence — such as throwing projectiles at police or torching cars — that create the confrontation the president evidently craves. Waving Mexican flags on television also allows Trump to depict protesters as invaders. This is hardly the first time that Trump has been eager to deploy troops to city streets. He tried to do so during the George Floyd protests in 2020. Trump reportedly urged Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper to 'crack their skulls' and asked whether troops could shoot protesters in the legs. Esper and Milley resolutely refused to countenance such state violence or even to deploy active-duty troops. The National Guard did deploy but generally acted with appropriate restraint. That history helps explain why Trump was so eager this time to appoint officials he no doubt viewed as more compliant. He fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he inherited from the Biden administration and brought out of retirement a three-star officer, Dan Caine, whom he apparently believed (probably mistakenly) would be loyal to him personally. And for defense secretary, Trump chose Fox News host Pete Hegseth, who made clear during his confirmation hearings that he would have no objection in principle to using force against protesters. Hegseth's tenure has been a troubled one so far: It has been characterized by nonstop turmoil among his senior staff and by the scandal over his use of an unsecure Signal chat to share information about a planned military attack on the Houthis in Yemen. Even Trump has reportedly been upset with Hegseth for all the bad publicity he is generating and for his willingness to brief Elon Musk (who has substantial business interests in China) on the Pentagon's plans for fighting China. So it is no surprise that, in dealing with the Los Angeles protests, Hegseth appears to be acting as an accelerator, rather than a brake, on the president's worst instincts. Perhaps desperate to get back in Trump's good graces, the defense secretary tweeted on Saturday that not only was he 'mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY' but that, 'if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.' Hegseth appears all too willing to put troops in a situation they should not be in, where they risk becoming political pawns in the administration's attempt to foment a crisis that will enable the president to assert even greater executive power. Now it will be up to the troops themselves, from Caine on down, to ensure they keep their honor clean and do not do anything that would transgress on the First Amendment rights that generations of their forebears fought to protect. The troops cannot refuse a lawful order to deploy, but their commanders can push back behind the scenes and ensure that any soldiers or Marines on city streets do not make a bad situation even worse.

A protester tried to interrupt Apple exec Craig Federighi at WWDC
A protester tried to interrupt Apple exec Craig Federighi at WWDC

The Verge

time3 hours ago

  • The Verge

A protester tried to interrupt Apple exec Craig Federighi at WWDC

A protester attempted to disrupt the beginning of Apple's WWDC. At Apple's in-person event, software chief Craig Federighi was onstage delivering opening remarks to attendees when the protester began shouting. The protester marched in and unzipped his jacket to reveal a keffiyeh. He also held up a badge and appeared to say 'I work at Apple,' though his remarks were hard to hear. The protester spoke for about 30 seconds before security walked him out. Throughout, Federighi continued talking. The protester's appearance follows protests at recent Microsoft events. During Microsoft's Build conference last month, a Microsoft employee disrupted CEO Satya Nadella's keynote with a 'Free Palestine' protest. A day later, a Palestinian tech worker interrupted a presentation by Microsoft's head of Core AI, Jay Parikh.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store