Donald Trump 'win bigly' victory speech widely mocked on Twitter
This is not the first time the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee has used the word 'bigly'
Donald Trump has never been famed for his grammar. While a recent academic study found the Republican Party’s “presumptive” nominee's syntax was equivalent to that of an 11-year-old, he has now caused an uproar with the choice of words used in his victory speech.
“We’re going to win bigly,” the 69-year-old mogul-turned-politico declared after hearing his competitor Ted Cruz had dropped out of the race for the GOP nomination.
Mr Trump was speaking while toasting his landslide victory in the Indiana primary. “We’ve been losing all the time, we lose with our military, we can’t beat Isis, we lose with trade, we lose with borders, we lose with everything,” he went on.
“We’re not going to lose, we are going to start winning again and we’re going to win bigly.”
Bigly is a real but very archaic word which has largely gone out of use. It is defined as meaning “comfortably habitable” by the Collins Dictionary.
Mr Trump's unusual choice of lingo has caused an onslaught of mockery and derision on social media.
Unimpressed with his semantics, one Twitter user said: “I live in fear that this phrase will become part of everyday speech”.
Another added: “The presumptive GOP nominee for President of the United States just said “We're going to win bigly.”
We have a presidential candidate who uses the word "bigly" like he believes it's a real word. Lol
— Geoff Schwartz (@geoffschwartz) May 4, 2016 I love Trump's use of the underused word "bigly."
— ANNE LAMOTT (@ANNELAMOTT) May 4, 2016
This is not the first time Mr Trump has appeared to utilise the word bigly. An Oxford Dictionary blog entry titled "Refudiating Real Words" back in February about Mr Trump's use of the word bigly, saying he “has managed to come up with a few new words and phrases of his own”.
"Including one that sounds like 'bigly', though some say he means 'big league'," the post continues. "Mr Trump has used it repeatedly as a means of emphasis in stump speeches (stump used in relation to political campaigning, referring to the use of a tree stump, from which an orator would speak). Instances include phrases such as 'Iran is taking over Iraq bigly', or referencing Fox News talking 'bigly' about immigration."
So, how do your grammar skills measure up to Mr Trump? Take our quiz to find out.
Clinton camp: Trump ‘perhaps’ coping with potential loss to ‘first woman president’
LAS VEGAS — Hillary Clinton’s top campaign staffers criticized Donald Trump’s Wednesday night refusal to say he would accept the election results on Nov. 8, suggesting he is having trouble coping with the fact that he may lose to a woman.
“I think he’s just trying to find an excuse for the fact that he’s going to lose,” Clinton’s communications director, Jen Palmieri, told reporters after the third and final debate. “And perhaps the fact that he’s going to lose to the first woman president is making it a little harder.”
During the debate, Trump said he could not promise to accept the presidential election results until he sees them next month, saying he would keep the country in “suspense” until then. In recent days, Trump has told his supporters that there is massive voter fraud in the U.S. and he believes that the system is “rigged” against him. Trump has also fallen in the polls over the past few weeks.
“This is someone who either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to obey the peaceful transfer of power,” Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook said. “It’s a chilling preview of what his administration could be like. “I think the results are going to be very clear on Election Day. I’m sure he’ll try to do all sorts of things to deflect and blame others.”
Palmieri said it’s possible Trump would not actually contest the election results. “I don’t think he’s going to find a lot of support even in the Republican Party for continuing beyond the election,” she said. “Even his own campaign manager today said he will abide by the result of the election.”
She added: “We’ll see what actually happens and how he chooses to handle it. He’s not a great loser.”
Hillary Clinton’s 3 debate performances left the Trump campaign in ruins
Donald Trump didn't just destroy himself. Hillary Clinton destroyed him.
Updated by Ezra Klein Oct 19, 2016, 11:58p
The third and final presidential debate has ended, and it can now be said: Hillary Clinton crushed Donald Trump in the most effective series of debate performances in modern political history.
The polling tells the story. As Nate Silver notes, on the eve of the first presidential debate, Clinton led by 1.5 points. Before the second, she was up by 5.6 points. Before the third, she was winning by 7.1 points. And now, writing after the third debate — a debate in which Trump said he would keep the nation "in suspense" about whether there would be a peaceful transition of power, bragged about not apologizing to his wife, and called Clinton "such a nasty woman" — it’s clear that Trump did himself no favors. Early polls also suggest Clinton won.
Popular vote tracker:
Before 1° debate: Clinton +1.5
Before 2° debate: Clinton +5.6
Before 3° debate: Clinton +7.1 https://t.co/WLXtJovjYd
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 19, 2016
The dominant narrative of this election goes something like this. Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate who is winning because she is facing a yet weaker candidate. Her unfavorables are high, her vulnerabilities are obvious, and if she were running against a Marco Rubio or a Paul Ryan, she would be getting crushed. Lucky for her, she’s running against a hot orange mess with higher unfavorables, clearer vulnerabilities, and a tape where he brags about grabbing women "by the pussy."
There’s truth to this narrative, but it also reflects our tendency to underestimate Clinton’s political effectiveness. Trump’s meltdown wasn’t an accident. The Clinton campaign coolly analyzed his weaknesses and then sprung trap after trap to take advantage of them.
Clinton’s successful execution of this strategy has been, fittingly, the product of traits that she’s often criticized for: her caution, her overpreparation, her blandness. And her particular ability to goad Trump and blunt the effectiveness of his political style has been inextricable from her gender. The result has been a political achievement of awesome dimensions, but one that Clinton gets scarce credit for because it looks like something Trump is doing, rather than something she is doing — which is, of course, the point.
It began in the first debate. "Donald," she kept saying. No one quite knows why Trump so loathes the sound of his first name, but he does. He quickly tried to shame Clinton into showing him more respect. "Secretary Clinton -- yes, is that okay?" he said, after she once again called him Donald. "Good. I want you to be very happy. It's very important to me."
Clinton’s next answer: "In fact, Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis..."
Each debate has followed the same pattern. Trump begins calm, but as Clinton needles him, he falls apart, gets angrier, launches bizarre personal attacks, offers rambling justifications for his own behavior, and loses the thread of whatever question was actually asked of him.
Clinton, meanwhile, crisply summarizes the binders full of policy information she absorbed before the debate. The gap in preparation, knowledge, and basic competence has been evident in every contest, and it’s led to polls showing that even voters who loathe Clinton recognize she’s far more qualified and capable than Trump. Nor does Clinton make mistakes — she’s often criticized for being careful and bland in her answers, but here it’s helped her, as she’s never taken the headlines away from Trump’s own gaffes.
But Trump’s true meltdown was triggered in a specific moment at the end of the first debate. HOLT: We are at — we are at the final question.
CLINTON: Well, one thing. One thing, Lester.
HOLT: Very quickly, because we're at the final question now.
CLINTON: You know, he tried to switch from looks to stamina. But this is a man who has called women pigs, slobs, and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said…
TRUMP: I never said that.
CLINTON: …women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men.
TRUMP: I didn't say that.
CLINTON: And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman "Miss Piggy." Then he called her "Miss Housekeeping," because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name.
TRUMP: Where did you find this? Where did you find this?
CLINTON: Her name is Alicia Machado.
TRUMP: Where did you find this?
CLINTON: And she has become a US citizen, and you can bet…
TRUMP: Oh, really?
CLINTON: …she's going to vote this November.
This was the beginning of Trump’s collapse. He would spend the next few days litigating and relitigating his humiliation of Machado. He took to Twitter in the middle of the night to tell Americans to watch a sex tape of Machado that didn’t exist.
The moment set in motion all that came next. It set off the explosive debate about the language Trump uses to talk about women. It was the context for the leaked audio of Trump from 2005. It’s what led Trump to go full Breitbart and try to turn the second debate into a referendum on Bill Clinton’s sexual past — a strategy that top Republicans had warned him against, and that widened the gap between the GOP and its presidential nominee.
Clinton was able to make Trump’s treatment of women the issue in part because she and her campaign had prepared to make Trump’s treatment of women the issue, and in part because she is a woman and her assault on Trump flummoxed his usual mode of defense, which is to dominate and insult the other men on the stage. By the end of the final debate, Trump was reduce to spitting that Clinton was "such a nasty woman," a line that spoke to both his horror at being challenged by a woman and his complete inability to control what came out of his mouth after 80 minutes on a stage with Clinton.
Two things have been true throughout the debates. One is that Trump has been, at every turn, underprepared, undisciplined, and operating completely without a strategy. In one of the third debate’s most unintentionally revealing moments, Trump said, "I sat in my apartment today ... watching ad after false ad, all paid for by your friends on Wall Street," an inadvertent admission that he was inhaling cable news when he should have been prepping for the debate.
But the other reality is that Clinton has been, at every turn, prepared, disciplined, and coldly strategic. She triggered Trump’s epic meltdown purposely, and kept Trump off balance over multiple weeks that probably represented his last chance to turn the election around. She was ready for every question, prepared for every attack, and managed to goad Trump into making mistakes that became the main story the day after every single debate.
It is easy, now, to assume her victory was assured, to read Trump’s collapse as inevitable. But remember that he triumphed over a talented, 17-person Republican field in debate after debate to win the primary — one-on-one contests are unique, it’s true, but there was no particular reason to think Trump couldn’t use his bullying, blustering showmanship to take over the stage and expose Clinton as inauthentic and out of touch. The reason he didn’t is because she never let him.
We aren’t used to this kind of victory. We aren’t used to candidates winning not so much because of how they performed but because of how they pushed their opponent into performing. But the fact that we aren’t used to this kind of victory doesn’t make it any less impressive. Hillary Clinton has humbled Donald Trump, and she did it her way.
Presidential debate: Hillary Clinton wins final face-off against Donald Trump, YouGov poll suggests
While Trump was somewhat more prepared and restrained during this debate, he still could not resist taking jabs and Clinton
The candidates for president of the United States faced off for the third and final time, but only one could come out on top. So, who won?
Donald Trump has had some trouble over the past few weeks staying on message in his debates, instead resorting to jabs and insults at his opponent. All the while, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to each debate prepared and seemingly immune to Mr Trump’s attacks.
During this final debate in Las Vegas, Mr Trump did appear somewhat more prepared than he had in previous debates – although, expectations for the real estate magnate were low and a behavioural adjustment would appear to improve.
Trump calls Clinton 'such a nasty woman'
But viewers do not appear to have bought Mr Trump’s toned down performance, which was still rife with racist dog whistles when he referred to Mexican criminals as “bad hombres”, sexism when he called Ms Clinton a “nasty woman”, and despotic undertones when he suggested he would not accept the results of the election if he lost.
But according to the latest YouGov poll, Hillary Clinton won the debate hands down.
Of the 1503 registered voters who watched the debate, 49 per cent found that Ms Clinton won; while 39 per cent thought Mr Trump won. Only 12 per cent thought the debate ended in a tie.
A large majority, 68 per cent, of those surveyed said that the candidates should “pledge to accept the result of the election” – which included 51 Republicans. Only 14 per cent opposed such a pledge, while 18 per cent did not know.
When it came to temperament and fitness, Ms Clinton dominated. Sixty-nine per cent said that Ms Clinton demonstrated “excellent” or “good” knowledge of policies, as opposed to Mr Trump’s 40.
Some 59 per cent of viewers surveyed also found Ms Clinton presidential, while Mr Trump only earned 40 on this point. On the issues, the candidates were basically tied.
Presidential debate: Hillary Clinton wins final head-to-head against Donald Trump, polls say Voters say the Democratic nominee has won her third debate in a row
Justin Carissimo New York
6 hours ago
Hillary Clinton is the winner of the third and final presidential debate, according to voters in the first opinion polls of the night.
One survey, conducted by CNN/ORC, found that 52 per cent of voters believe Ms Clinton won the 90-minute debate on Wednesday night compared to 39
percent of participants who said that her rival Donald Trump won the contest.
Ms Clinton has now been declared the winner of all three televised debates by the CNN poll.
Democrats accounted for 36 per cent of the 547 registered voters surveyed , while only 29 per cent of respondents were Republicans.
The survey was first conducted between October 15 and October 18 and voters were re-interviewed after the debate. Results carry a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 per cent.
The debate comes after nine women accused the Republican nominee of sexual assault over the course of 10 days. When he was questioned about his accusers at the debate, Mr Trump remained unapologetic and said that "there's nobody that has more respect for women than I do." He would later interrupt Ms Clinton on several occasions in addition to calling her "such a nasty woman.”
Sixty per cent of debate watchers also said that Mr Trump spent the majority of the debate attacking Ms Clinton.
Despite losing the people’s vote, Mr Trump outperformed the expectations of voters with nearly six in 10 viewers admitting that he did better than they anticipated. Forty-four per cent of voters said the same of Ms Clinton.
Mr Trump was widely criticised for refusing to say if he’ll accept the final election results after voters hit polling booths on November 8. Even Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus broke away from his party’s candidate by telling reporters that Mr Trump will accept the election's final results.
Meanwhile, the latest YouGov poll also declared Ms Clinton the clear winner on Wednesday night. Out of 1,503 registered voters who tuned into the debate, 49 per cent of participants said Ms Clinton came out on top. Thirty-nine per cent of voters argued that Mr Trump won the contest while 12 per cent claimed it was a tie.
Sixty-eight per cent of voters disagreed with Mr Trump by suggesting that both candidates pledge to accept the final election results come November.
Who won the third US Presidential election debate? Poll results and highlights from the final Trump vs Clinton
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have taken part in their third and final TV debate ahead of November's presidential election.
The trio of clashes have been unlike any other in the history of US elections.
There have been personal attacks, sneers, accusations, claims of flat out lying - and at one point Donald Trump threatened to throw Hillary Clinton in prison if he got elected.
But while they may not show the democratic process in the most edifying light, they've been watched by record numbers of Americans as they try to decide who they want as their next President.
US election 2016 poll tracker: Is Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton winning the race for the White House?
The first two debates came as Donald Trump faced a torrent of claims after he bragged about grabbing women "by the p***y".
So how were the debates set up, and who won the final showdown according to polls and the media?
Here's everything you need to know about the US Presidential debates.
Who won the final debate?
Hillary Clinton had established a lead in the polls and the final debate echoed that - sort of. A CNN/ORC survey immediately after the showdown gave her a 13-point lead.
Of the 547 registered voters questioned, 52% thought Clinton did the best job and 39% thought Trump did.
But CNN said this was much tighter than in a similar poll after the first two debates.
The first debate poll gave 62% to the Democrat and just 27% to her Republican rival, CNN said.
New York Times writer Nicholas Confessore said neither candidate had their best debate but added: "It was a tall order. And Mr. Trump did not deliver."
What were the 5 highlights?
1. Rigged election - Trump claimed the US election is rigged against him after making claims earlier in the week of "large-scale voter fraud".
2. Trump may REJECT election result - The Republican candidate refused to say if he would accept losing the election after making claims earlier in the week of "large-scale voter fraud". He added: "I will tell you at the time, I will keep you in suspense."
3. US has some 'bad hombres' - Trump defended his call for deportations by citing the "millions and millions" of people who have been kicked out during the Obama years. One of his turns of phrase stood out: "We have some bad hombres here, and we're going to get them out.
4. Clinton campaign 'made up' groping allegations - Trump sensationally accused Hillary Clinton's campaign of fabricating the allegations of sexual assault against him. "I think they either want fame or her campaign did it - and I think it's her campaign," he said.
5. Putin wants a puppet for president - Clinton said that Putin would "rather have a puppet as president of the United States." "You're the puppet," Trump said, sounding like a variation of, I know you are but what am I?
The Trump Show is ending. Sad!
That’s a wrap, folks. Thanks for coming. You’ve been a terrific audience.
For 16 months, Donald Trump’s accidental campaign was the hottest thing on TV. Even Trump seemed surprised when his little side project, sandwiched between seasons of “The Apprentice” and premised on giving away a bunch of hats, blew up into a cultural phenomenon.
How could he have known it would be that easy to take over an entire party? I sure didn’t. Turns out the Republican Party was like “Wheel of Fortune”; people followed out of habit, but they were sick to death of the reruns.
But as Trump scowled and scoffed his way through one final debate, it was clear that his egomaniacal show had finally played itself out. After weeks of ugly disclosures and cratering polls, all that remained for Trump was to figure out some way to end the series without having to admit it was canceled.
So after railing all week against a “rigged” election, Trump pointedly refused – twice – to say he would accept the result as legitimate. “I’ll keep you in suspense,” he said instead. I guess every dying show needs its cliffhanger finale.
As the candidate himself might have put it in one of his famous tweets: Trump claiming fraud because his poll numbers are horrible! Sad!
I’ll make a rare prediction here, which is that someday in the not-so-distant future, when he feels like not enough people are paying attention to him, Trump will generate headlines by telling a reporter he never really wanted to be president, anyway. And it will be the truest thing he’s said in a while.
But what about the rest of us? What kind of shaken country will Trump leave in his tumultuous wake? How do we fix what’s broken?
This much we know: The next inauguration won’t feel at all like the one I sat through, in a bitter freeze, eight years earlier, at a moment when it was possible to believe that America had turned a cultural and generational corner.
I’ve always thought President Obama should have returned the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded in 2009. I say this not because he hadn’t earned it (obviously he hadn’t), but because Obama’s Nobel seemed to me an unmistakable statement on the way elite Europeans viewed America.
The supposition underlying the award seemed to be that our country was so self-evidently racist and violent that the mere act of a black man winning the presidency constituted an unfathomable act of courage and resistance.
Had I been advising Obama then, I’d have suggested he go out to the Rose Garden and tell the world that his campaign had affirmed exactly the opposite – that America was a more enlightened country than it used to be, that it took no Gandhi-like resolve to run as a nonwhite candidate anymore, and that the bigotry of an earlier era was fast receding to the margins of the society.
You might say I was naive, seeing as a sizable chunk of the country is about to vote for a man heartily endorsed by David Duke. But I still believe I was right.
A lot of Americans will vote for Trump in November in spite of his bigotry and xenophobia, not because of it. They can’t stomach Hillary Clinton, or they’re desperate to upend Washington, or they’re just diehard Republicans, and they hope – foolishly, I think – that Trump would somehow blossom into a president who’s bigger than the insecure and reckless man they watched again last night.
But that’s distinct from the much smaller universe of furious, nostalgic, culturally displaced voters who drag their kids to Trump rallies, who see themselves living in a racially defined society where white men are the oppressed class, who have no real problem with violence or misogyny or people holding signs with swastikas.
There aren’t actually more of these voters than there used to be. Contrary to liberal hysteria, Trump hasn’t managed to ignite some new White Power movement.
What he’s done, in his frenzied, yearlong effort to find love and acceptance among people with whom he really has nothing in common, is to relegitimize attitudes that had become unacceptable in polite conversation and often career-ending in public discourse.
This is a different thing from enforcing political correctness, which is what bigots always scream you’re trying to do. I’ve written a few times before about my disdain for “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” and the bleaching out of historical figures who make us uncomfortable. I’ll be the first one to stand up for your right to disagree about how we define liberty and progress.
The effect of Trump’s televised rallies and rhetoric, void of compassion or intellect, can be seen now in places you wouldn’t have normally encountered it before. Take, for instance, the recent experience of Michael Luo, my former colleague at the New York Times, who wrote about a woman on Manhattan’s Upper East Side who shouted at him to take his family back to China where they belonged.
In Trump’s America, as in the Reality TV world from which he spawned, nothing is too outrageous or too mean to blurt out. No one needs to accept modernity or feel shame for spewing ignorance. This is his legacy.
For years now, ruling Republicans have tried to have it both ways – to somehow mollify and exploit the darkest impulses of the electorate while publicly espousing the high-minded principles of conservatism.
After both of the last presidential elections, Republicans had a muted argument – more of a discussion, really – about how to expand their reach. That awkward conversation went pretty much nowhere, because Republican leaders didn’t want to offend any core constituencies.
But now they owe it to the country to clean up after themselves. It’s time to firmly renounce and marginalize the last vestiges of a 1950s social order – if not from a moral imperative, then surely from a political one.
This will be, after all, the fourth straight election in which Republicans have been crushed among first-time voters. And at the end of the day, Trump will probably pull fewer than a third of so-called millennial voters, who are already surpassing baby boomers as the largest share of the electorate.
You can bet Republicans will spend the next few months talking about what a terrible messenger Trump was. After that, they’ll pivot to reminding people of how little they like Clinton, and they’ll start searching for a candidate who can offer a better contrast in 2020.
But there is no distancing the party from Trump without disowning what he represents. Further down the well-worn path of accommodation and avoidance, there is only losing and irrelevance.
The Trump Show is just about over. Governing Republicans can’t afford a sequel, and neither can the rest of us.
Rasheed Bank intends to apply to transfer your money IBAN system
News / Baghdad
announced the Rasheed Bank , on Thursday, expressed its intention of introducing its IBAN system to transfer money in and out of Iraq , referring to the use of the overall banking system through the application of this system.
The bank manager Rashad Khudair in a statement Sumerian received News, " Thebank has a cycle training on the use of IBAN issuing bank banking customers own identity program , "noting the importance of " the program in the unification of thebank accounts of all banks operating in Iraq figures in preparation for the use of the banking system overall, which leads to improving the level of financial and banking services. "
He Khudair , "it was a timetable for lecturing on the branches and staff of the current account and savings managers to explain the importance of the International Bank Account Number setting , " noting that " the bank will pay under this system to transfer money in and out of Iraq for all customers bank through that account."
Mentions Iraqi banks have not kept pace with developments in the work of international banks developments, and has been linked through the use of telephone and fax machines, and did not interfering internet only after the year 2004 and is seeking the Ministry of Finance to the banks associated with them to develop through theintroduction of modern technologies and linking banks globally automatically, to facilitate the transfer of funds to and from Iraq.
IFAD to begin investment in Iraq to address challenges of agriculture and rural developmentThe development of the first strategic roadmap for investment in smallholder agriculture and rural development in Iraq is the focus of a high-level meeting being held in Amman from 18 to 20 October.
Organized by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the meeting will set the stage for identifying the priorities for IFAD’s engagement in Iraq, including the main strategic objectives, as well as the framework for the first ever IFAD investment in the country.
The development of Iraq’s *country programme is aligned with, and will build on IFAD’s fragile situations strategy.
“IFAD is committed to working in the most fragile and complex environments,” said Khalida Bouzar, IFAD Director for the* Near East, North Africa and Europe Division. “We will work to build the resilience of target communities in post-conflict environments such as Iraq,” she added. This, she said, would be done through complementary partnerships with local and international organizations while maintaining a clear focus on job generation and targeting the most vulnerable communities.
Also addressing the meeting on the opening day will be Ahmad A.H. Bamarni, Ambassador of Iraq to Italy. Other participants include the different directorates of Iraq’s Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Water Resources, as well as representatives of *universities and research institutions working on agriculture in Iraq.
The opening session will be followed by presentations by experts from Iraq on challenges and priorities facing smallholder farming in the sectors of crop production, water and irrigation, livestock, date palm, honey production, climate change and natural resource management. Experts will also focus on sustainable agriculture, agricultural policy needs and access to finance.
A special session will be devoted to the challenges and priorities for targeting and empowering the most vulnerable communities in Iraq.
Working in collaboration with other international partners who support agriculture and rural development issues in Iraq is a key element for IFAD projects. *Interventions will be made by a number of international organizations to highlight the scope of their work, and identify complementarities with the IFAD investment.
Post your commentary below.
The commander of U.S. Central Command detailed the progress of the Mosul offensive in Iraq and also spoke of the long-range strategies for the United States in the Middle East during a discussion at the Center for American Progress here today.
Army Gen. Joseph L. Votel answered questions from former Deputy Defense Secretary Rudy DeLeon, stressing at all times the need to listen to allies in the region.
Votel gave a quick update on the Iraqi offensive to liberate their country’s second-largest city from the clutches of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. “What I can report to you is that it is on track with the plan,” he said. “In some areas, we are right where we expected to be, in other areas we are a little bit ahead of where we expected to be.”
ISIL is facing advances from three different directions – the south, east and northeast, the general said, and they are getting squeezed. “What we are seeing so far is that the plan the Iraqi security forces have put together along with their Kurdish partners … is meeting the needs of what we must do right now,” he said.
Time, Effort, Sacrifice
The offensive is only three days old, Votel noted, and the ISIL terrorists have had two years to build up defenses and emplace booby-traps and improvised explosive devices throughout the city. He said he expects the liberation of Mosul to take a lot of time, effort and sacrifice.
The key watchwords Votel said he uses for the counter-ISIL campaign are “momentum” and “pressure.”
“It is extraordinarily important that we keep momentum up for our activities,” he said. “There is a lot of activity that we are continuing to pursue out there because it supports the other notion of constant pressure on the Islamic State.”
Operations against the group in Syria and other parts of Iraq did not stop because of the offensive on Mosul, the general pointed out. “The strategy has been to try to present the Islamic State with as many dilemmas as we possibly can,” he said.
Post your commentary below.
Statement by Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin (pictured), United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UNFPA, to the United Nations Population Fund, on the Protection of Women and Girls in Mosul:
I am deeply concerned about the rapidly escalating humanitarian crisis in Mosul, Iraq, and the heightened threat to the health and lives of pregnant women who may be cut off from life-saving emergency obstetric care.
Among the 200,000 people likely to be displaced during the initial weeks of military operations in Mosul, an estimated 46,000 are women and girls of reproductive age, including about 8,000 who are pregnant or about to give birth. Life-saving health services must be maintained and accessible to all who require them.
Whether women live or die in a crisis often depends on whether they can access basic sexual and reproductive health services, which too often take a back seat to other urgent needs, like food and shelter. This includes pregnant women, who may face potentially life-threatening childbirth complications, as well as lactating women, caring for newborns throughout the chaos.
UNFPA is scaling up emergency reproductive health services and its response to gender-based violence to protect the health and lives of women and girls caught in the midst of this crisis, which is expected to displace more than one million people in the weeks ahead.
Additional funding is urgently needed to mobilize health-care providers and equip them with medicines and other essential reproductive health supplies and equipment.
UNFPA is committed to the full realization of the sexual and reproductive health and rights of all women and girls under all conditions, crisis or otherwise, at all times.
(Source: UNFPA – United Nations Population Fund)
Post your commentary below.
U.S. and coalition military forces continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Iraq and Syria on Tuesday, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported yesterday.
Officials reported details of the latest strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.
Strikes in Syria
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted eight strikes in Syria:
Near Abu Kamal, a strike destroyed two oil tanker trucks and an oil pumpjack.
Near Shadaddi, two strikes engaged two ISIL tactical units and destroyed four vehicles and a fighting position.
Near Dayr Az Zawr, a strike destroyed eight oil tanker trailers and an oil wellhead.
Near Mara, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit.
Near Washiyah, three strikes engaged two ISIL tactical units and destroyed two vehicles.
Strikes in Iraq
Attack, bomber, fighter, remotely piloted aircraft and rocket artillery conducted six strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:
Near Haditha, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two vehicles, two weapons caches, an artillery system and an ISIL-held building.
Near Mosul, two strikes destroyed an ISIL-held building and a command and control node.
Near Qayyarah, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL-held building and a vehicle.
Near Sultan Abdallah, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a fighting position.
Near Tal Afar, a strike suppressed ISIL small arms fire.
Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.
Part of Operation Inherent Resolve
The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group’s ability to project terror and conduct operations, officials said.
Coalition nations that have conducted strikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations that have conducted strikes in Syria include the United States, Australia, Bahrain, Canada, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom.
(Source: US Dept of Defense)
Post your commentary below.
In Mosul, women and children face impossible choice: risk their lives fleeing city or stay for battle to comeAs the military operation approaches Mosul, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) warns that residents, including up to 900,000 women and children, will have to make the terrible decision to risk their lives escaping ISIS, or stay and face the oncoming onslaught.
The city’s most vulnerable people, including the elderly, pregnant women, and those with young children, are the least able to flee the city.
Aleksandar Milutinovic, the International Rescue Committee’s Iraq County Director, said:
“As people hear the fighting getting closer to their homes, many in Mosul will decide that their children and loved ones will be safer risking minefields and capture by ISIS than getting caught up in the crossfire. We know from speaking with people who recently escaped Hawija that ISIS will be increasing their patrols of the city, and anyone caught trying to escape risks execution. For those who do slip past, mines and explosive devices will undoubtedly result in casualties.”
However, many of the most vulnerable will struggle to flee, leaving them more likely to get caught up in the fighting. Milutinovic said:
“While those who attempt to escape Mosul face horrific obstacles to reach safety, we can’t forget those unable to take the dangerous journey. The IRC is particularly concerned that those left behind for the fighting to come will include some of the most vulnerable of Mosul’s civilians, including the elderly, pregnant women, those with young children, as well as women and girls who have lost male relatives.”
It is expected that as many as 200,000 people could flee from the city in these first weeks, though there are currently only 60,000 tents available in seven emergency camps.
In total, up to 1 million people could flee their homes in search of safety during the military operation, with an estimated 700,000 requiring shelter, food, water and other vital aid. The majority will end up seeking shelter in abandoned buildings, schools and mosques in the towns and villages around Mosul.
The IRC’s mobile response teams are waiting close to the frontline to the north, east and south of the city and are ready to reach the most vulnerable. The IRC teams will provide $420 in cash to 5,000 families (30,000 people) so they can buy food, pay rent and buy clothes, blankets and cooking utensils.
Another 30,000 will be given essential items, provided with legal support or identified as needing specialist care. With more funding the IRC could increase the reach of its response to 90,000 people.
After escaping the city, men and boys over the age of 14 will be security screened. This may take several days and it will be critical conditions are suitable, and people are provided with food, water, medical care and adequate communication on the process. The IRC will be one of the few aid agencies present at these centres, helping to ensure that the most vulnerable are identified, prioritised and, if necessary, given medical care.
Those fleeing Mosul will have lived under the nightmare of ISIS’s rule for two years. Many will have gone without medical care, struggled to pay for food and been traumatised by the violence they have witnessed.
A significant number will require specialist help going far beyond the immediate needs of food, water and shelter in the months to come. The IRC’s teams of child protection and women’s protection experts will seek to support those most in need of additional care in the coming weeks.
You can read more about life in Mosul and the IRC’s planned respond here and the stories of Iraqis who recently fled ISIS controlled areas here.
(Source: International Rescue Committee)
Post your commentary below.