Tag: defend

  • IPL 2023: Brilliant bowling helps Delhi Capitals defend low score against Sunrisers

    IPL 2023: Brilliant bowling helps Delhi Capitals defend low score against Sunrisers

    [ad_1]

    Hyderabad: Delhi Capitals came up with a brilliant bowling effort to squeeze out a 7-run win against Sunrisers Hyderabad, negating some brilliant late-order batting by Heinrich Klaasen and Washington Sundar in Match 34 of IPL 2023 here on Monday.

    It was a superb bowling effort by the Delhi Capitals bowlers as Axar Patel, Kuldeep Yadav, Anrich Nortje and Ishant Sharma applied the squeeze as they throttled the Sunrisers Hyderabad innings in a low-scoring encounter.

    Washington Sundar had claimed 3-28 and three batters were run-out as Delhi Capitals were restricted to 144/9 in 20 overs. Though it looked like they had fallen 20 runs short, in the end, it proved enough thanks to the brilliant effort put up by the DC bowlers.

    MS Education Academy

    After Mayank Agarwal (49) had maintained the Sunrisers’ chances with a crucial knock, Heinrich Klaasen (31 off 19 balls, 3×4, 1×6) and Sundar (24 not out off 15, 3×4) revived their chances after a middle-order wobble. Thanks to their efforts, Sunrisers Hyderabad needed 38 runs off 18 balls and after Klassen and Sundar claimed 15 runs in the 18th over bowled by Mukesh Kumar.

    Nortje allowed SRH only 10 runs in the 19th over despite Sundar hitting a fine boundary. They needed 13 runs from the last six deliveries but Mukesh Kumar bowled a superb final over to win the match for Delhi. He allowed only five runs as SRH ended with 137/6 in 20 overs and fell short by a narrow margin.

    This was the second successive win for Delhi Capitals as they continue their revival thanks to a brilliant effort by their bowlers. SRH succumbed to their third defeat in a row.

    Mayank Agarwal had kept Sunrisers Hyderabad in the hunt as he struck a 39-ball 49 as they recovered from a poor Power-play in which they managed to score only 39/1.

    Delhi Capitals bowlers came up with a disciplined effort and kept the SRH batters under pressure, dried up the boundaries and claimed crucial wickets in the middle part of the innings as the asking rate kept climbing.

    Axar Patel claimed 2-21 off his four overs, Kuldeep Yadav gave away only 1-22 in his four while Ishant Sharma had 1-18 in three as Delhi Capitals applied the screws.

    Agarwal kept alive their hopes after Harry Brook (7) was out early, castled by Anrich Nortje with 31 runs on the board. Agarwal struck seven boundaries as he tried to get the better of the DC bowling. He and Impact Substitute Rahul Tripathi (15) added 38 runs for the second wicket. However, after both of them were out in quick succession, Sunrisers Hyderabad lost Abhishek Sharma (5) and skipper Aiden Markram (3) were sent back by spinners Kuldeep Yadav and Axar Patel respectively as SRH slumped to 85/5 in the 15th over.

    Heinrich Klaasen blasted a superb 19-ball 31 and Washington Sundar contributed a 15-ball 24 not out but in the end, their efforts went in vain as the SRH succumbed to the pressure and failed to win a match they should have won easily.

    Brief scores:

    Delhi Capitals 144/9 in 20 overs (Axar Patel 34, Manish Pandey 34; Washington Sundar 3-28, Bhuvneshwar Kumar 2-11) beat Sunrisers Hyderabad 137/6 in 20 overs (Mayank Agarwal 49, Henrich Klassen 31, Washington Sundar 24 not out; Axar Patel 2-21, Anrich Nortje 2-33) by 7 runs.

    [ad_2]
    #IPL #Brilliant #bowling #helps #Delhi #Capitals #defend #score #Sunrisers

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Trump attorney says he will not ‘defend or condemn’ Trump’s rhetoric toward Manhattan DA

    Trump attorney says he will not ‘defend or condemn’ Trump’s rhetoric toward Manhattan DA

    [ad_1]

    aptopix election 2024 trump 78111

    “I think that was an ill-advised post that one of his social media people put up, and he quickly took down when he realized the rhetoric and photo that was attached to it,” Tacopina added.

    Trump has not been indicated in the New York case, though he still could be.

    When asked whether he was concerned that Trump’s barrage of social media posts on Truth Social, the platform Trump helped found, could lead to violence similar to the Jan. 6 riots, Tacopina said that he did not believe it was Trump’s rhetoric that let to the violence at the Capitol in 2021, and declined to condemn “anything regarding social media.”

    “Well, I’m not accepting that proposition, that his rhetoric created violence [on Jan. 6]. I think violence was on the way that day,” Tacopina said.

    “I’m not going to defend or condemn anything regarding social media. That’s not what I do. I’m not a Trump PR person. I’m a litigator and a lawyer,” he told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

    [ad_2]
    #Trump #attorney #defend #condemn #Trumps #rhetoric #Manhattan
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Gujarat: Police defend public flogging of Muslims; report finds six cops at fault

    Gujarat: Police defend public flogging of Muslims; report finds six cops at fault

    [ad_1]

    Ahmedabad: Police have defended in the Gujarat High Court the public flogging of some people from a minority community following stone pelting in the state’s Kheda district last year saying the persons were “cornered” to maintain peace and it was not done with any criminal intent.

    This defence comes even as an interim police report talks of action against six cops in connection with the incident.

    Kheda Superintendent of Police R H Gadhiya and Police Inspector of Local Crime Branch, A V Parmar, filed separate affidavits before the bench of Justices N V Anjaria and Niral Mehta on Tuesday in a contempt case regarding the alleged flogging of some Muslims accused of stone-pelting during an event last year.

    During Navratri in October 2022, some villagers as well as policemen were injured after a mob comprising members of the Muslim community allegedly hurled stones at a garba dance event at Undhela village in Kheda district.

    Videos purportedly showing police personnel publicly flogging three of the 13 arrested accused went viral on social media.

    Later, some of the accused approached the HC claiming that the police personnel involved in the act had committed contempt of court by flouting Supreme Court directions on people in custody as laid down in the D K Basu vs State of West Bengal case.
    In his affidavit, Gadhiya said when the accused persons were taken to Undhela village for investigation, they “tried to misbehave and abuse the police officers”.

    “When 8 accused were brought at the village as part of investigation on October 4, the male accused, after getting down from police vehicle, started abusing verbally the police officials and one accused Shejadmiya Shukatmiya spitted on police inspector of LCB, Ashok Parmar,” the SP said in his affidavit.

    The SP further said other accused persons “collected stones in their hands and started instigating members of Hindu community who had gathered there. The accused did not pay heed to requests made for sitting in a police vehicle and started a scuffle with police”.

    Referring to the alleged flogging incident, the SP said that “as a result of this incident, there was a hue and cry, and it is only with a view to maintain the peace and harmony, that the suspects were cornered so that no untoward incident further takes place”.

    Through the affidavit, the SP also informed the court that as soon as he received instructions from the Range IG to inquire into the alleged flogging, he deputed Deputy SP of Kapadvanj Division to probe into the issue.

    In his interim report of December 1, the DySP stated when the accused persons had started misbehaving, the on-duty police officials were required to control them using other means instead of “physically abusing the accused with lathi”.

    “As per the interim report submitted by the DySP Kapadvanj, Range IG immediately acted against erring police officers and chargesheets have been issued to six policemen, including LCB PI A V Parmar, while the departmental proceedings are pending,” Gadhiya said.

    He submitted that transcripts of call recordings revealed that the entire incident of stone-pelting was “preset and pre-meditated with a view to create fear amongst the members of Hindu community and to disturb the law and order”.

    More than 150 persons from the minority community had cordoned off the Mataji Chowk and started pelting stones. The “pre-meditated” offence left 8 residents and three policemen injured, said the SP.

    In his affidavit, Police Inspector A V Parmar, claimed that the police officials in question had acted within their powers
    “Respondents (policemen) acted within the scope and ambit of their powers and there has not been any act committed by them which is beyond the powers conferred on the respondents. The acts of respondents are the acts in discharge of their duties and these acts were not done with any criminal intent,” said Parmar in his affidavit.

    He drew the court’s attention that “more or less, every year when Hindu festivals like Navratri is celebrated, some altercations happen between Hindus and Muslims of the village”. He added that one of the petitioners is already facing two cases of rioting and he was the main conspirator in this case too.

    “The petitioners themselves have engaged in disturbing the social fabric of a village by creating rifts between two communities and by assaulting people of that village. Petitioners are guilty of not stating true facts before this court and they themselves had created an atmosphere of fear and terror amongst law abiding citizens,” he said.

    Parmar said the present proceedings initiated by the petitioners for contempt of court are not maintainable as per the law.

    “The Parliament has already amended the CrPC (Code of Civil Procedure), 1908, and made appropriate safeguards by inserting provisions for the arrested persons and therefore guidelines issued earlier by the SC in the D K Basu case would give way in favour of those provisions of the amended CrPC,” he said.

    [ad_2]
    #Gujarat #Police #defend #public #flogging #Muslims #report #finds #cops #fault

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Dems mobilize to defend Omar in face of GOP defections

    Dems mobilize to defend Omar in face of GOP defections

    [ad_1]

    election 2022 minnesota house 56618

    “She will be the first to tell you that we both disagree on a lot of things. I love Israel, and I will defend it wholeheartedly. She’s deeply troubled by the Israeli government. But that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a voice on the Foreign Affairs Committee, even if it is painful for me,” said Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips — a Jewish Democrat who in the past spoke out against some of her remarks, for which she later apologized.

    Asked about whether his Democratic colleagues would come to the same conclusion: “I think some are struggling, but I ultimately believe yes.”

    Taking Omar off panels only requires a simple majority vote, but even that could prove difficult for a House GOP with a historically slim margin — and a second public defector emerging Tuesday, as Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) joined Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) in declaring that she wouldn’t vote for yanking Omar.

    Democrats are privately lobbying other Republican members of the Foreign Affairs panel to oppose Omar’s removal. Centrist Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Omar’s expected counterpart on a Foreign Affairs subpanel, are seen as top prospects, according to several Democrats familiar with the situation. Smith declined to comment, citing his focus on a health issue.

    Another panel member, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), was still undecided, he told POLITICO. And Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) was also undecided, according to a person familiar with his thinking.

    If just two more Republicans promise to vote against booting Omar, it will mark a humiliating defeat for GOP leaders on a priority they’ve broadcasted for years — further rattling a conference that’s still trying to counter the narrative that it’s too divided to accomplish much over the next two years.

    Powerful Democratic blocs like the Progressive Caucus, where Omar serves in leadership, and the Congressional Black Caucus are expected to rally behind the Minnesotan, a high-profile liberal who’s the regular subject of intense vitriol and even death threats. Omar had been evacuated to a secure location along with congressional leaders during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

    “It’s ridiculous,” Black Caucus Chair Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) said in a brief interview. “We support Rep. Omar. She’s an effective legislator who deserves to maintain her seat and we’re gonna continue to represent her and other members who are being used as political pawns in the Republican payback.”

    The furor over Omar’s comments on Israel began just weeks after she came to Congress four years ago. Several of her fellow Democrats were enraged by tweets that appeared to lean into antisemitic tropes, implying that lawmakers’ support for Israel was driven by campaign donations from pro-Israel groups. Those tweets were deleted, and Omar apologized. (Phillips was one of several members who had a one-on-one conversation with her about the tweets, and he said they both made it a point to continue their relationship.)

    She also drew conservative backlash later in 2019 for comments about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Omar has said her comments were taken out of context by Republican critics. Two years later, Omar caused another public rift within her party with comments that appeared to equate the U.S. and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban while discussing war crimes — remarks she also quickly sought to clarify.

    Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), one of several Jewish Democrats previously critical of Omar for the Hamas comparison, said: “There’s no reason to remove Congresswoman Omar from her committees except revenge. … We removed Congressman [Paul] Gosar and [Marjorie] Taylor Greene because they threatened violence against other members, including death. That is not anything that Congresswoman Omar did.”

    Asked if she thought all Democrats would be united behind Omar, Wasserman Schultz said, “Of course, but we’re just going to take this one step at a time.”

    Democrats are emphasizing the differences between Omar’s situation and the two Republicans removed from committees in 2021 by separate, bipartisan House votes. Nearly a dozen Republicans agreed to remove Greene (R-Ga.) from her committee posts for incendiary rhetoric against her fellow members of Congress, and two Republicans voted to remove Gosar (R-Ariz.) from his committees over a violent social media post in which he threatened prominent Democrats.

    Neither of the two Republicans who voted to remove Gosar remain in Congress.

    “I think there’s a big difference between policy disagreements and inciting and encouraging violence against members of Congress,” said Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), who sits on Foreign Affairs with Omar and fiercely disputed GOP claims that Democrats started the precedent of removing members from committees.

    “As a Jewish member of Congress, I take this very seriously,” Jacobs added.

    Phillips, for his part, added that it is a particularly tough decision for some members given the rise in harmful rhetoric: “Antisemitism is rearing its ugly head. I don’t think she’s antisemitic, I think she’s made some mistakes. … I believe that she’s learned from it, and I mean that sincerely.”

    Democrats plan to name their own Foreign Affairs members in the coming days — an assignment Omar has said she expected Democratic leaders to grant by the end of this week. And given the GOP’s slim margins in the lower chamber, Democrats are betting they may be able to flip enough Republicans to sink any vote on stripping Omar’s committee assignments.

    While some Republicans still haven’t said how they’ll vote, key moderates like Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) are signaling that the vote is a result of Democratic moves from the last Congress.

    “I’ll listen to the debate and review comments she’s made. But, the Dems should not be surprised by this. Pelosi set a new standard on how the majority treats the minority. … Now the new minority will have to live by [the] same standard,” Bacon said in a statement.

    Omar is not the only Democrat who will be stripped of a committee; Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, both Californians, will also lose their spots on the House Intelligence Committee. The three members appeared on TV together Monday night, where they were dubbed the “McCarthy Three” by MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell. But Omar will be the only one whose committee membership will face a floor vote, as McCarthy has the power to remove Intelligence panel members on his own.

    McCarthy on Tuesday rejected Schiff and Swalwell’s appointments to the House Intelligence Committee, claiming that both had put national security at risk. However, he demurred when asked earlier Tuesday if he had the votes to remove Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

    The trio said in a joint statement Tuesday evening it was “disappointing but not surprising that Kevin McCarthy has capitulated to the right wing of his caucus, undermining the integrity of the Congress, and harming our national security in the process.”

    The optics of singling out Omar — a woman of color and one of Congress’ first Muslim women members, who’s set to be the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs subpanel overseeing Africa — are likely to be a major part of Democrats’ messaging next week.

    Olivia Beavers and Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #Dems #mobilize #defend #Omar #face #GOP #defections
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • If Germany has truly learned from its history, it will send tanks to defend Ukraine

    If Germany has truly learned from its history, it will send tanks to defend Ukraine

    [ad_1]

    Germany has a unique historical responsibility to help defend a free and sovereign Ukraine. Europe’s central power is also uniquely qualified to shape a larger European response designed to end Vladimir Putin’s criminal war of terror in a way that deters future aggression around places such as Taiwan.

    As a signal of strategic intent to measure up to this double obligation, from the past and for the future, the Berlin government should commit at the Ukraine defence contact group meeting in Ramstein, Germany, this Friday not only to allow countries such as Poland and Finland to send German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine but also do so itself, in a coordinated European action. Call it the European Leopard plan.

    Germany’s historical responsibility comes in three unequal stages. Eighty years ago, Nazi Germany was itself fighting a war of terror on this very same Ukrainian soil: the same cities, towns and villages were its victims as are now Russia’s, and sometimes even the same people.

    Boris Romanchenko, for example, a survivor of four Nazi concentration camps, was killed by a Russian missile in Kharkiv. No historical comparison is exact, but Putin’s attempt to destroy the independent existence of a neighbouring nation, with war crimes, genocidal actions and relentless targeting of the civilian population, is the closest we have come in Europe since 1945 to what Adolf Hitler did in the second world war.

    The lesson to learn from that history is not that German tanks should never be used against Russia, whatever the Kremlin does, but that they should be used to protect Ukrainians, who were among the greatest victims of both Hitler and Stalin.

    The second stage of historical responsibility comes from what the German president, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, has honestly described as the “bitter failure” of German policy towards Russia after the annexation of Crimea and the start of Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine in 2014. That policy could accurately be characterised as appeasement. (In a recent interview, former chancellor Angela Merkel praised the Netflix drama Munich – The Edge of War for suggesting that Neville Chamberlain might be seen in a more positive light.) Fatefully, far from reducing its energy dependence on Russia, Germany further increased it after 2014, to more than 50% of its total gas imports, as well as building the never-used Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

    This historic mistake led to the third and most recent stage. A month after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February last year, a group of leading German figures formulated an appeal for an immediate boycott of fossil fuels from Russia. “Looking back on its history,” they wrote, “Germany has repeatedly vowed that there must ‘never again’ be wars of conquest and crimes against humanity. Today the hour has come to honour that vow.” (Full disclosure: I co-signed this appeal.)

    Chancellor Olaf Scholz decided against this radical course, arguing that it would endanger “hundreds of thousands of jobs” and plunge both Germany and Europe into recession. Instead, the country made hugely impressive efforts, led by the Green economy minister Robert Habeck, to wean itself off Russian energy.

    While doing so, however, it was paying Russian bills that had soared precisely because of the impact of the war on energy prices. According to a careful analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, in the first six months of the full-scale war, Germany paid Russia some €19bn for oil, gas and coal. For comparison: Russia’s entire military budget for six months in 2021 was around €30bn. (No reliable figures are available for 2022.) Since a large part of Russia’s budget revenues comes from energy, the unavoidable conclusion is that Germany was contributing to Putin’s military budget, even as he prosecuted a war of terror on the very soil where Nazi Germany had prosecuted a war of terror 80 years before. Yes, other European countries also went on paying Russia for energy, but none had Germany’s unique historical responsibility towards Ukraine.

    Vladimir Putin in Moscow at last year’s Russian Energy Week
    Vladimir Putin in Moscow at last year’s Russian Energy Week, when he talked of increasing gas supplies to Europe through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Photograph: Getty Images

    To its credit, the German government’s position on military support for Ukraine has moved a very long way since the eve of the Russian invasion. In total figures of defence aid promised, Germany is among Ukraine’s leading supporters, as it is in humanitarian, economic and financial support. But on arms supplies it has been hesitant and confused, always at the reluctant end of the western convoy. As the Ukrainian foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, tartly comments: “It’s always a similar pattern: first [the Germans] say no, then they fiercely defend their decision, only to say yes in the end.” It’s worth noting that Germany has a formidable defence industry that has very profitably exported lethal equipment to some quite dubious regimes around the world. So why not send it to defend a European democracy against the new Hitler?

    Berlin’s concerns about Russian escalation in response to higher-end western arms supplies – possibly even to the first use of a Russian nuclear weapon – are shared by the Biden administration in Washington. But there is no risk-free way forward. By systematically targeting Ukraine’s civilian population, Putin has already escalated. Now he is mobilising the Russian Federation’s vast reserves of manpower, and probably intends to launch a new offensive sometime this year. And in the meantime, there is daily and continuing tragedy. Witness today’s terrible helicopter crash, which killed Ukraine’s interior minister, Denys Monastyrskyi, his first deputy, Yevhen Yenin, other senior officials and several children.

    On a sober strategic analysis, the only realistic path to a lasting peace is to step up military support for Ukraine so it can regain most of its own territory and then negotiate peace from a position of strength. The alternatives are an unstable stalemate, a temporary ceasefire or an effective Ukrainian defeat. Putin would then have demonstrated to Xi Jinping, and other dictators around the world, that armed aggression and nuclear blackmail can pay off handsomely. Next stop, Taiwan.

    The exact mix of military means needed by Ukraine is a matter for the experts. It includes more air defence, reconnaissance systems, ammunition and communications equipment as well as armoured vehicles. But any large-scale Ukrainian counteroffensive will now require modern battle tanks. Leopard 2 is the best suited and most widely available such tank, with – so successful are German arms exports – more than 2,000 of them held by 12 other European armies besides the Bundeswehr.

    This has also become a litmus test of Germany’s courage to resist Putin’s nuclear blackmail, overcome its own domestic cocktail of fears and doubts, and defend a free and sovereign Ukraine. Scholz’s speech at the World Economic Forum on Wednesday gave no hint of such boldness. But in stepping to the front of a European Leopard plan for Ukraine, Scholz would be showing German leadership that the entire west would welcome. He would also be learning the right lessons from Germany’s recent and very recent history.

    Timothy Garton Ash’s Homelands: A Personal History of Europe will be published this spring

    This article was amended on 19 January 2023. An earlier version said that the film Munich – The Edge of War was a Netflix series, rather than a Netflix drama.

    • Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

    [ad_2]
    #Germany #learned #history #send #tanks #defend #Ukraine
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )