Latest news with #JulietteKayyem
Sky News AU
3 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News AU
CNN ripped after trashing FBI as ‘juvenile' for branding hate-fueled Colorado firebomb attack as terrorism
CNN has been blasted after one of the lefty outlet's commentators trashed the FBI as 'juvenile' for quickly branding the hate-fueled Colorado firebomb attack as terrorism. Juliette Kayyem, one of the network's national security analysts, came under fire after challenging FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino when they declared Sunday's violence at a pro-Israel rally in Boulder a 'targeted terror attack.' 'It makes law enforcement look disorganized and it makes the FBI look so juvenile, like why are you getting ahead of the police chief who says 'I don't know what this is,'' Kayyem said on air late Sunday in the wake of the incident. 'We're going to take a step back, not be responsive to tweets by two heads of the FBI who don't have a long history in law enforcement,' she continued. 'And we will wait and hope it isn't what we all worry it is — and if it is, then there'll be an investigation.' Kayyem, a former Department of Homeland Security official under President Barack Obama and current Harvard professor, added that if the probe found the violence was spurred by terrorism, she'd be the first to say it's a 'hate crime.' 'But until we do, we all need to, to not follow the FBI's tweets,' she said. The backlash again Kayyem was swift on social media, with many pointing to footage of the horror that showed the terror suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, screaming 'Free Palestine' before he blasted a crowd who were commemorating the Israeli hostages still in Gaza. 'The guy shouted 'Free Palestine' while throwing fire bombs at a crowd of Jewish people,' Ben Williamson, an assistant director for the FBI's public affairs unit, wrote on X. 'We correctly referred to an investigation of terrorism, will continue to do so and we have zero interest in what either these CNN guests have to say. Kick rocks.' Another raged, 'There's a man on video in Boulder ranting about Zionism as he sets Jews on fire. CNN's first reaction? Andrew McCabe and Obama official Juliette Kayyem bashing Dan Bongino and Kash Patel as 'juvenile' and 'irresponsible' for saying this was an 'act of terror.'' 'Juliette Kayyem's degrading remarks about the FBI, Patel, & Bongino is unacceptable. She must apologize to them publicly, then she should be fired. The people have had enough of the woke should be ashamed of itself,' one person added. Eight victims between 52 and 88 years old were hospitalized with varying injuries in the wake of Sunday's attack, authorities said. The shirtless firebug suspect, identified as an Egyptian national who had overstayed his visa in the US, was nabbed at the scene. No criminal charges were immediately announced but officials said they would move to hold Soliman accountable. The Post reached out to Kayyem but didn't hear back immediately. Originally published as CNN ripped after trashing FBI as 'juvenile' for branding hate-fueled Colorado firebomb attack as terrorism
New York Post
4 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
CNN ripped after trashing FBI as ‘juvenile' for branding hate-fueled Colorado firebomb attack as terrorism
CNN has been ripped after one of the lefty outlet's commentators trashed the FBI as 'juvenile' for quickly branding the hate-fueled Colorado firebomb attack as terrorism. Juliette Kayyem, one of the network's national security analysts, came under fire after challenging FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino when they declared Sunday's violence at a pro-Israel rally in Boulder a 'targeted terror attack.' 'It makes law enforcement look disorganized and it makes the FBI look so juvenile, like why are you getting ahead of the police chief who says 'I don't know what this is',' Kayyem said on air late Sunday in the wake of the incident. 3 CNN is being slammed for downplaying the terror attack in Boulder, Colorado , which saw multiple people set on fire at a pro-Israel rally. CNN 'We're going to take a step back, not be responsive to tweets by two heads of the FBI who don't have a long history in law enforcement,' she continued. 'And we will wait and hope it isn't what we all worry it is – and if it is, then there'll be an investigation.' Kayyem, a former Obama Department of Homeland Security official and current Harvard professor, added that if the probe found the violence was spurred by terrorism that she'd be the first to say it's a 'hate crime.' 'But until we do, we all need to, to not follow the FBI's tweets,' she said. 3 A hate-fueled suspect launched a targeted terror attack in Colorado on Sunday â setting at least one woman on fire. The backlash again Kayyem was swift on social media with many pointing to footage of the horror that showed the terror suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, screaming 'Free Palestine' before he blasted a crowd who were commemorating the Israeli hostages still in Gaza. 'The guy shouted 'Free Palestine' while throwing fire bombs at a crowd of Jewish people,' Ben Williamson, an assistant director for the FBI's public affairs unit wrote on X. 'We correctly referred to an investigation of terrorism, will continue to do so and we have zero interest in what either these CNN guests have to say. Kick rocks.' 3 FBI Director Kash Patel called the incident a 'targeted terror attack.' AP Another raged, 'There's a man on video in Boulder ranting about Zionism as he sets Jews on fire. CNN's first reaction? Andrew McCabe and Obama official Juliette Kayyem bashing Dan Bongino and Kash Patel as 'juvenile' and 'irresponsible' for saying this was an 'act of terror.'' 'Juliette Kayyem's degrading remarks about the FBI, Patel, & Bongino is unacceptable. She must apologize to them publicly, then she should be fired. The people have had enough of the woke mentality. CNN should be ashamed of itself,' one person added. Start and end your day informed with our newsletters Morning Report and Evening Update: Your source for today's top stories Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Eight victims between 52 and 88 years old were hospitalized with varying injuries in the wake of Sunday's attack, authorities said. The shirtless firebug suspect, identified as an Egyptian national who had overstayed his visa in the US, was nabbed at the scene. No criminal charges were immediately announced but officials said they would move to hold Soliman accountable. The Post reached out to Kayyem but didn't hear back immediately.
The Print
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Print
India has ditched the old, tragic way of dealing with threats. Now it prepares before crisis
In 2001, despite the establishment of the Multi-Agency Centre (MAC) after the Kargil War and the attack on Parliament, intelligence gaps remained. By the time 26/11 happened, the failure to connect the dots—collating and analysing—had become visible. There was no national agency tasked with terror investigation before 26/11. The response was fragmented, with national and state agencies operating in silos. Links between terrorism, narcotics, and finance were rarely explored. The response to Pakistan after 26/11 was diplomatic and verbose, not strategic. After the Parliament attack, India nearly went to war with its neighbour in Operation Parakram, yet gained little deterrence. For years, India's national security response to terror attacks followed a familiar, tragic cycle—condemnation, outrage, and a scramble for action. After the 1993 Mumbai blasts, 2001 Parliament attack, and the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, India found itself reacting rather than responding. Condemnation was swift, coordination was weak, and response was nil. New laws were passed in haste, but without any coherent strategy. Societal morale was high, but national readiness was low. Harvard professor and crisis management expert Juliette Kayyem often says that preparedness is a 'moving target'—that is, it is constantly evolving. She draws a distinction between the 'left of boom' (before a crisis occurs) and the 'right of boom' (after a crisis has occurred). True preparedness, she argues, is what a nation does before the crisis occurs—how it plans, trains, and builds resilience in the system to reduce the severity of crisis. India has long lived in the shadow of boom. Today, it has stepped firmly into the realm of preparedness. The media too often acted without restraint. During terror strikes, live coverage gave away operational positions. Some journalists played to the gallery, perhaps even against national interest. A quiet revolution in security preparedness A lot has changed over the past few years. India is no longer waiting for the boom. It is preparing before the crisis happens. And when it does, the response is swift, surgical, and strategic. India now has a robust terror jurisprudence. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was significantly strengthened in 2019, empowering the government to designate individuals—not just organisations—as terrorists. It also enhanced the powers of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), enabling it to investigate and seize properties linked to terror cases. The NIA, formed after 26/11, has become truly national in its role. As Union Home Minister Amit Shah said during the debate on the new criminal laws in Parliament, terrorism is now clearly defined in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), giving a firm legal foundation to security action. India now operates with a preemptive mindset, ready to neutralise threats before they turn into crises. The 2022 crackdown on the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI) is one such example. In a single day, locations across the country were raided and more than 100 arrests made. It showed how a coordinated, multi-agency effort could dismantle a pan-India threat. The same integrated approach is being seen in the fight against narco-terrorism and Left Wing Extremism. The missing terror-finance-narcotics link is now a focus area for the NIA. The Multi-Agency Centre itself has been upgraded at a cost of Rs 500 crore. Inaugurated by Amit Shah this month, the new MAC at North Block is designed to be India's internal security grid, unifying intelligence and operations against terrorism, organised crime, and cyber threats. Also read: Lessons for airpower from Operation Sindoor—unified command to tech advancements A new response doctrine India's military response to terrorism has also evolved. After the 2016 Uri attack, India launched surgical strikes across the LoC, targeting terror launchpads. After the Pulwama attack in 2019, it conducted airstrikes across the border in Balakot. In both cases, Pakistan's retaliatory attempts were countered without escalation. But the biggest shift came after the recent Pahalgam attack. India launched wide-ranging airstrikes on nine terror camps in Pakistan. In response to Pakistan's air provocations, India targeted its air force infrastructure—putting real costs on the table. This isn't posturing; this is strategy. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared, if there is a terror attack on India, it will respond firmly on its own terms—striking at the roots, rejecting nuclear blackmail, and treating terror masterminds and their state sponsors as one, with Operation Sindoor now India's new normal. From victimhood to resolve Earlier, India was often seen as the complainant in the global court of opinion. Now, it acts first and informs later. It does not wait for mediation. It sets the narrative. During the Kargil War in 1999, India scrambled to import ammunition. In contrast, 88 per cent of the Army's ammunition needs today are met domestically. Moreover, India now manufactures 65 per cent of its defence equipment domestically—a remarkable turnaround from the earlier 65 per cent import dependency, underscoring India's growing self-reliance in defence. The defence ecosystem has expanded—from BrahMos and Pinaka to advanced radars and drone systems. The Akashteer air defence system intercepted every Pakistani missile and drone during Operation Sindoor. The indigenous D4 anti-drone system and Bhargavastra hard-kill drones neutralised the threat of swarm drones, including Turkish ones. Defence-tech firms like BEL, Paras Defence, IdeaForge, and Zen Technologies now power India's preparedness. India's diplomacy too remained firm. Even while responding to terror, the government signed a free trade agreement (FTA) with the UK and PM Modi addressed a global space conference. This is not a business-as-usual mindset. It reflects the maturity of a nation handling multiple challenges at once. The media has also matured. Gone are the days of breathless reporting during an attack. A new generation of tech-savvy journalists understands operational sensitivity. They help decode misinformation during conflict and give citizens factual updates when calm returns. Access journalism has given way to informed, analytical reporting. Also read: Operation Sindoor is a springboard in India's new confidence in Make in India weapons The road ahead India is now in a better place—legally, operationally, and strategically. From reacting with outrage to responding with resolve, the transformation has been slow but steady. Preparedness is never final. It is a moving target. But India is now moving with it—and, more importantly, ahead of it. Abhishek is an electrical engineer turned policy professional. He is currently on an academic break to pursue a Mid-Career Master's in Public Administration (MC-MPA) at the Harvard Kennedy School. He tweets @Abhis_chaudhari. Views are personal.
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- Yahoo
Fear of Flying Is Different Now
'Can you never do that again?' my son texted me on Monday in our family group chat. I had sent a series of photos of my flight in the tiny Cessna Caravan that had just flown my mortal being 120 miles, from Chicago O'Hare International Airport to West Lafayette, Indiana. The nine-seat aircraft, which runs on a single turboprop engine, was so small that the ground crew had to weigh luggage and passengers in order to distribute their weight evenly in the cabin. It was, in short, the kind of plane that makes it easy to fear for your life. By contrast, I hadn't been concerned at all—and my son had found no cause to worry—about the American Airlines regional jet that I'd taken on the first leg of my trip, from St. Louis to Chicago. Just a few days later, an American Airlines regional jet collided with a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter in Washington, D.C., killing everyone involved: 60 passengers, four crew members, and three service members. The National Transportation Safety Board has said it will take at least a year to identify a final probable cause of the crash. Until then, one can only guess that the aircrafts and their machinery were not themselves to blame. The New York Times has reported that the relevant air-traffic-control tower may have been understaffed and that the helicopter might have been outside its flight path. As Juliette Kayyem wrote for The Atlantic yesterday, a rise in flight traffic has been increasing the risk of mid-air collisions for years, especially in busy airspace such as Washington's. [Read: The near misses at airports have been telling us something] Statistically, for now at least, flying is still much safer than driving. According to the International Air Transport Association, on average a person would have to travel by plane every day for more than 100,000 years before experiencing a fatal accident. A host of factors has made flying more reliable, among them more dependable equipment, better pilot training, tighter regulations, stricter maintenance standards, advances in air-traffic control, and improved weather forecasting. But the amorphous, interlocking systems that realize commercial flight are hard to see or understand, even as they keep us safe. For ordinary passengers—people like me and my son—any sense of danger tends to focus on the plane itself, because the plane is right in front of us, and above our heads, and underneath our feet, and lifting us up into the sky. A fear of flying makes little sense, because flying is just physics. One really fears airplanes, the aluminum tubes in which a fragile human body may be trapped while it is brought into flight. A machine like that can crash. A machine like that can kill you. The Boeing 737 Max's recent string of mishaps, including two fatal accidents in 2018 and 2019, and, more recently, a lost door during flight, are still fresh in the minds of passengers, and history only reinforces the fear. In 1950, a TWA Lockheed Constellation en route from Bombay to New York crashed when its engine caught on fire and detached. In 1979, another engine detachment on a DC-10 wide-body jet caused the crash of American Airlines Flight 191. In 1988, an Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 lost an 18-foot-long section of upper fuselage on the way from Hilo to Honolulu. Human error—a contributing factor in most crashes, if not their direct cause—can also stem from equipment failure, as in the case of Pan Am Flight 812 in 1974 and Air France Flight 447 in 2009. Yet the salience of an airplane's actual machinery has been fading too. For passengers, the experience of commercial flight may be worse than ever, but the planes themselves now seem more reliable and more accommodating (if only so many passengers weren't packed into them). Twenty years ago, regional flights would commonly use turboprops to transport passengers between hubs and small-to-medium-size cities. These planes were louder and bumpier. Flying in them felt worse, and it inspired more anxiety for that reason. Are little turboprops actually more dangerous than jets? A direct comparison is difficult, because the smaller planes are often used for shorter flights, and more flights mean more takeoffs and landings—when most accidents occur. But the numbers are somewhat reassuring overall, at least when it comes to commercial flight. (The numbers for general aviation, which includes recreational planes, skydiving operations, bush flying, and the rest of civilian noncommercial flight, are less reassuring.) The NTSB filed investigations into eight fatal aviation accidents in the United States from 2000 to 2024 that involved commercial aircraft with turboprop engines, and 13 for aircraft with turbo fans (the most common passenger-jet engine). In any case, modern airport logistics, just like modern jumbo jets, have helped build a sense of safety—or at least hide a source of fear. U.S. passengers used to board and disembark their flights from the tarmac with more regularity. This was true of prop planes and bigger jets alike. The shrill whine of turbines and the sweet smell of aviation fuel made the mechanisms of flight more palpable; it reminded you that you were entering a machine. Nowadays, that reality is hidden. You board comfortable, quiet cabins from the climate-controlled shelter of jet bridges. All of these changes have tamped down the fear of planes to the point that, for many passengers, it will now resurface only under certain throwback conditions—such as when I found myself bobbing over the Hoosier farms in a plane cabin the size of a taco truck. That sort of white-knuckling is a distraction from the truer, more pervasive risks of air travel in 2025. The systemic lapses and conditions that have produced frequent near misses in aviation, and that may have contributed to this week's accident, now seem likely to worsen under the Trump administration, which has purged the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, fired the head of the Transportation Security Administration, and blamed DEI for a fatal crash. [Read: Is there anything Trump won't blame on DEI?] The nation's pervasive weakness in aviation safety is genuinely scary, but it's shapeless, too. It provokes the sort of fright that you feel in your bones, the sort that makes you entreat a loved one to please never fly in one of those again, okay? And yet, I might well have been safer in the cold cabin of a turboprop 5,000 feet above Indiana than I would have been on an approach to an overcrowded, understaffed airport in a quiet regional jet. The plane still seems like the thing that might kill you. Even now, I suspect it always will. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
31-01-2025
- Atlantic
Fear of Flying Is Different Now
'Can you never do that again?' my son texted me on Monday in our family group chat. I had sent a series of photos of my flight in the tiny Cessna Caravan that had just flown my mortal being 120 miles, from Chicago O'Hare International Airport to West Lafayette, Indiana. The nine-seat aircraft, which runs on a single turboprop engine, was so small that the ground crew had to weigh luggage and passengers in order to distribute their weight evenly in the cabin. It was, in short, the kind of plane that makes it easy to fear for your life. By contrast, I hadn't been concerned at all—and my son had found no cause to worry—about the American Airlines regional jet that I'd taken on the first leg of my trip, from St. Louis to Chicago. Just a few days later, an American Airlines regional jet collided with a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter in Washington, D.C., killing everyone involved: 60 passengers, four crew members, and three service members. The National Transportation Safety Board has said it will take at least a year to identify a final probable cause of the crash. Until then, one can only guess that the aircrafts and their machinery were not themselves to blame. The New York Times has reported that the relevant air-traffic-control tower may have been understaffed and that the helicopter might have been outside its flight path. As Juliette Kayyem wrote for The Atlantic yesterday, a rise in flight traffic has been increasing the risk of mid-air collisions for years, especially in busy airspace such as Washington's. Statistically, for now at least, flying is still much safer than driving. According to the International Air Transport Association, on average a person would have to travel by plane every day for more than 100,000 years before experiencing a fatal accident. A host of factors has made flying more reliable, among them more dependable equipment, better pilot training, tighter regulations, stricter maintenance standards, advances in air-traffic control, and improved weather forecasting. But the amorphous, interlocking systems that realize commercial flight are hard to see or understand, even as they keep us safe. For ordinary passengers—people like me and my son—any sense of danger tends to focus on the plane itself, because the plane is right in front of us, and above our heads, and underneath our feet, and lifting us up into the sky. A fear of flying makes little sense, because flying is just physics. One really fears airplanes, the aluminum tubes in which a fragile human body may be trapped while it is brought into flight. A machine like that can crash. A machine like that can kill you. The Boeing 737 Max's recent string of mishaps, including two fatal accidents in 2018 and 2019, and, more recently, a lost door during flight, are still fresh in the minds of passengers, and history only reinforces the fear. In 1950, a TWA Lockheed Constellation en route from Bombay to New York crashed when its engine caught on fire and detached. In 1979, another engine detachment on a DC-10 wide-body jet caused the crash of American Airlines Flight 191. In 1988, an Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 lost an 18-foot-long section of upper fuselage on the way from Hilo to Honolulu. Human error—a contributing factor in most crashes, if not their direct cause—can also stem from equipment failure, as in the case of Pan Am Flight 812 in 1974 and Air France Flight 447 in 2009. Yet the salience of an airplane's actual machinery has been fading too. For passengers, the experience of commercial flight may be worse than ever, but the planes themselves now seem more reliable and more accommodating (if only so many passengers weren't packed into them). Twenty years ago, regional flights would commonly use turboprops to transport passengers between hubs and small-to-medium-size cities. These planes were louder and bumpier. Flying in them felt worse, and it inspired more anxiety for that reason. Are little turboprops actually more dangerous than jets? A direct comparison is difficult, because the smaller planes are often used for shorter flights, and more flights mean more takeoffs and landings—when most accidents occur. But the numbers are somewhat reassuring overall, at least when it comes to commercial flight. (The numbers for general aviation, which includes recreational planes, skydiving operations, bush flying, and the rest of civilian noncommercial flight, are less reassuring.) The NTSB filed investigations into eight fatal aviation accidents in the United States from 2000 to 2024 that involved commercial aircraft with turboprop engines, and 13 for aircraft with turbo fans (the most common passenger-jet engine). In any case, modern airport logistics, just like modern jumbo jets, have helped build a sense of safety—or at least hide a source of fear. U.S. passengers used to board and disembark their flights from the tarmac with more regularity. This was true of prop planes and bigger jets alike. The shrill whine of turbines and the sweet smell of aviation fuel made the mechanisms of flight more palpable; it reminded you that you were entering a machine. Nowadays, that reality is hidden. You board comfortable, quiet cabins from the climate-controlled shelter of jet bridges. All of these changes have tamped down the fear of planes to the point that, for many passengers, it will now resurface only under certain throwback conditions—such as when I found myself bobbing over the Hoosier farms in a plane cabin the size of a taco truck. That sort of white-knuckling is a distraction from the truer, more pervasive risks of air travel in 2025. The systemic lapses and conditions that have produced frequent near misses in aviation, and that may have contributed to this week's accident, now seem likely to worsen under the Trump administration, which has purged the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, fired the head of the Transportation Security Administration, and blamed DEI for a fatal crash. The nation's pervasive weakness in aviation safety is genuinely scary, but it's shapeless, too. It provokes the sort of fright that you feel in your bones, the sort that makes you entreat a loved one to please never fly in one of those again, okay? And yet, I might well have been safer in the cold cabin of a turboprop 5,000 feet above Indiana than I would have been on an approach to an overcrowded, understaffed airport in a quiet regional jet. The plane still seems like the thing that might kill you. Even now, I suspect it always will.
