Terrorism

The Afghanistan crisis is generally spoken of as a crisis of the hour in terms of the Taliban, outside power intervention, or an unsuccessful election season. Such framing is not as profound as the problem. The state and province conquests, bargaining, and coercion united Afghanistan, the state, but not a civic transaction between peoples. Although the significance of an actual national flag was yet to arrive, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Pashtuns, and minorities occupied different regions, related to regional leaders, tribal councils, and local trade routes. The power was not national but local and individual. The contemporary state emerged later, and at the inception of its emergence, it was naturally skewed in a manner that remained to fulfil the definition of politics.

The birth of Ahmad Shah Abdali, recalled as Ahmad Shah Durrani in the middle of the eighteenth century, could be recalled as one of the foundational legends. It was also when the military alliance of one community had become the core of the state’s strength. The shell of a state was built by Ahmad Shah through warfare, and the coalition of Pashtun tribes consolidated the territory and gained more lands, with the foundation of a heterogeneous and broad territory. The logic, however, was not inclusion. It was piety, preference, and blackmail. Peripheral territories like the non-Pashtun were to be ruled as they were expected to submit, pay, or surrender when the center was strong and to ignore when it was weak. That model had never killed with Ahmad Shah. It was a practice that has been emulated by other leaders who have come after and tried to play a stage of unity without building institutions that can be regarded as belonging to all groups.

The trend was established following the demise of Ahmad Shah. Kabul was rarely what it purported to be. Power moved around among leaders, but the leadership was generally stopped at metropolises, armies, and major highways. Large areas were something like semi-autonomous states, which cooperated with the state, fought it, or alternated in each of the seasons. When they say that Afghanistan has never had full rule of its own land, people are not hurting the country; they are saying a structural truth, which is that the center has never had sovereignty and has never received legitimacy on the full map. The actual authority was left to the ethnic groups, strongmen, clerics, and commanders. In that perspective, any change in Kabul became existential to the non-residents of the city, as the state was no competition referee but a prize.

Even the geography and the demography make this worse. Pashtuns have been estimated to be approximately 42 percent, Tajiks approximately 27 percent, and Hazaras and Uzbeks approximately 9 percent, and the rest are made up of Turkmen, Baloch, and others. Two official languages exist: Pashto and Dari, but the status of any language could never be a purely cultural one since it was always a political one. Even the name of the country, Afghanistan, is perceived by most Afghans as a loaded word, and that practice is tied to the Pashtun identity and leadership even when they are being applied as a national one. People are angry because of the gap between the way the label instructs us to feel and the way that people feel. Pleas of togetherness are empty when the name of a state is doubted even in real life.

The south, northeast, and many of the cities are then the Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara distributions, respectively. These areas are not eliminated by violent migration, displacement in war, or careful political manipulation. Rather, the blurring would contribute to some new fault lines, and communities would need to be pushed into the interspace of their neighbors without an established system of solving disagreements without favoritism. The cross-border relationships include the Tajiks and Tajikistan, Uzbeks and Uzbekistan, and Pashtuns and Pakistan, and there is a stable tug-of-war that the neighbors and patrons can make use of. A low external and high center connection is a formula for continued disintegration.

This is the sphere where the aspect of security cannot be neglected. The decades of controversial control and open borders have transformed parts of Afghanistan into an attractive location for militants that occupy uncontrolled space. When the state cannot provide some kind of protection over territory, the armed networks take its position and deliver protection, taxation, ideology, and logistics. These networks do not have a localization. Training, financing, and planning have border-crossing characteristics, subjecting the region to an environment of a shared threat. At that, the question is not only a moral or historical one, but one of expediency: what are the political structures that may be implemented to make sure that Afghanistan will no longer remain a jihadist temptation to armed groups that can break the peace of its neighbors?

The solution is suggested in a provocative manner, and that is the territorial restructuring, a peaceful partitioning of the state along ethnic and regional lines: Uzbek majority areas become Uzbekistan, Tajik majority areas become Tajikistan, Pashtun majority areas become Pakistan, another separate state is established called Hazaras, etc. The appeal is obvious. It will eliminate the sovereignty of a group, a distinct line of power, and smaller political units, which might be more efficient to govern. It also tries to compare borders to lives in stating that when people believe that the state is an extension of them and not the rulers of the state, then stability is achieved.

Caracas, February 19, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez met with US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) chief General Francis Donovan in Miraflores Palace on Wednesday.

According to the presidential press, the previously unannounced high-level talks also included Venezuela’s interior and defense ministers, Diosdado Cabello and Vladimir Padrino López, respectively.

“During the meeting, both countries agreed to work on a bilateral cooperation agenda to fight against drug trafficking in our region, as well as on terrorism and migration,” a statement released on social media read.

The Venezuelan government argued that the meeting showed that “diplomacy” is the mechanism to address “differences and issues of regional interest.”

Donovan is the latest US high-ranking official to visit Caracas and meet with Rodríguez since the January 3 US military attacks that killed over 100 people and saw special operations forces kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

The acting president held talks with CIA Director John Ratcliffe on January 15 and hosted Energy Secretary Chris Wright last week at the presidential palace. US Chargé d’Affaires Laura Dogu has been in the country since late January, and Rodríguez has recently reported regular “respectful and courteous” communication with Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

SOUTHCOM confirmed the visit in a press release, disclosing that Donovan was accompanied by Acting Assistant Secretary of War Joseph Humire and stating that the officials expressed the US’ “commitment to a free, safe and prosperous Venezuela.”

The US military command added that discussions focused on “shared security across the Western Hemisphere,” and the Trump administration’s stated “three-phase plan” for the Caribbean nation: “stabilization, economic recovery and reconciliation, and transition.” For her part, Dogu reported Donovan’s visit on social media, calling it a “historic day” to “advance in the objective of having Venezuela aligned with the United States.”

Donovan took over the SOUTHCOM leadership in February after the resignation of Admiral Alvin Holsey over reported disagreements with US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on the legality of US lethal strikes against boats suspected of carrying drugs.

Since September, through “Operation Southern Spear,” SOUTHCOM has coordinated over 40 bombings of small vessels that have killed more than 130 civilians. The latest strikes, on February 16, targeted two boats in the Eastern Pacific and one in the Caribbean, killing 11 people in total. Neither Donovan nor Rodríguez mentioned the ongoing attacks in their public readouts following the meeting.

SOUTHCOM has also participated in the seizure of oil tankers accused of violating US sanctions by transporting Venezuelan crude. After seizing seven ships in the Caribbean between December and January, US forces have boarded two tankers in the Indian Ocean this month.

In the months leading up to the January 3 operation, Maduro and other Venezuelan officials consistently denounced the US’ military buildup in the Caribbean Sea and the subsequent naval blockade against oil exports.

Venezuelan authorities likewise blasted Washington’s “narcoterrorism” accusations against Caracas, pointing to specialized reports, including from the DEA, that placed Venezuela as a marginal country for global narcotics flows. Venezuelan officials also recalled the history of US agencies’ involvement in drug trafficking.

However, in the weeks after the January 3 strikes, Washington and Caracas have fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with a view toward reopening embassies. President Donald Trump has publicly recognized the acting government but the official change in policy has yet to be confirmed.

The acting Rodríguez administration also prioritized economic reforms to attract foreign investment, including a pro-business overhaul of the country’s Hydrocarbon Law. National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez said that the government is “adapting” legislation to attract US corporations and aiming for a “free market economy.”

North Korea has been designated a “high-risk jurisdiction” for money laundering and terrorism financing for the 16th consecutive year, financial authorities said Wednesday.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which is tasked with combating money laundering and terrorism financing, has put North Korea in the highest risk category along with Iran and Myanmar, according to the Financial Intelligence Unit under the Financial Services Commission.

“The FATF remains concerned by the DPRK’s continued failure to address the significant deficiencies in its anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism regime and the serious threats posed by the DPRK’s illicit activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and its financing,” the organization said on its website, referring to North Korea by the acronym of its formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The FATF, which works under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, has categorized North Korea as a “high-risk jurisdiction” since 2011.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

There was choas on board a Wizz Air flight from Luton to Tel Aviv when a passenger started messaging someone else on board having changed their WiFi name to ‘terrorist’

Fighter jets were forced to to intercept a flight from the UK after being alerted that a passenger on board changed their WiFi name.

The planes arrived after a person reported ‘threatening messages’ were being sent to people on the Wizz Air flight from Luton, which was due to land at Ben-Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, Israel. The ‘security incident’ unfolded when crew notified security officials in Israel of a potential threat.

Authorities believe a traveller changed their WiFi account name to ‘terrorist’ and started directly messaging fellow passengers. They raised the alarm and the fighter jets were given the order to circle the skies before the plane eventually landed safely in Israel.

READ MORE: Bermuda triangle of the sky where satellites mysteriously die in growing weak spot in earth’s magnetic fieldREAD MORE: Boeing 737 declares mid-air emergency after ‘serious passenger interference’

The Airports Authority said: “Due to suspicion of suspicious behaviour on the plane, security forces acted according to the procedures for such a case. The incident ended. The plane landed and it was found that there was no actual incident.”

N12 News reports that this isn’t the first time those in charge at the airport have been forced to act. Three years ago, during a flight of the Turkish airline Anadolu Jet, passengers were airdropped pictures and videos of planes crashing on their mobile phones.

There is no blame on the airline, but analysis of the latest data from the Authority shows that Wizz Air had the highest number of complaints per million passengers flown, beating Ryanair to the bottom spot. In fact, the Hungarian airline romped home with the prize.

It received 10,548 customer complaints from mid-2024 to March 2025, or 918 complaints per one million passengers. That means for every customer who flew, just under 1,000 registered a complaint during that period.

In Wizz Air’s favour is the relatively low ‘complaint upheld’ rate during that time, at 47%. It paid out £1,482,183 as a consequence, or £651 per customer on average.

The airline said: “At Wizz Air, every minute matters and customers are at the heart of everything we do. Since 2024, we have made significant investments across every part of our operations, including our Customer First Compass initiative – a £12 billion framework launched in 2025 to ensure we deliver the best possible service for our customers.

“This investment is already delivering results. In 2025, our UK flight completion rate was 99.8% – one of the best in the entire industry, while our on-time performance also improved by 14.23% compared to 2024. As a result, in 2025 customer satisfaction ratio already increased by 7% point year-on-year.

“We recognise that disruption does occasionally occur, on many occasions due to factors outside of our control. We are focused on responding quickly and effectively when it does. Our automated Chatbot, Amelia AI, is available 24/7 to address most customers’ enquiries and needs.”

Meanwhile, British Airways had a far lower complaints rate (192/one million customers), but 83% were upheld. BA paid out £6,238,378 in total, or £837 per customer.

Ryanair’s complaints-per-million-customers rate was 188, with a low complaints upheld rate of 28% and an average award of £694.