Kenya’s recent pro-democracy protests were marked by violence, looting and property destruction. In response, President William Ruto told police to shoot vandals in the legs and bring them in for trial, rather than killing them. Following these events, a video is circulating on social media with a claim that it shows Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni criticising the way the Kenyan police handled the protesters. But this is false; the video is from Museveni’s six-day trek in 2020 commemorating the 1986 liberation struggle, during which he cautioned his security forces against wielding their guns at civilians when managing crowds.

“President Museveni not happy for Kenyan police using excessive force on protesters (sic),” reads the text overlaid on a TikTok video published on July 11, 2025, and shared more than 8,000 times.

Additional text overlay quoted in English and Swahili reads: “Do not point your guns at civilians, they are not enemies,” while the accompanying caption on the post reads, “Museveni criticized Kenyan President William Ruto for police brutality on protesters.”

Screenshot of the false post, taken on July 21, 2025

The video shows Museveni dressed in a military uniform, giving an address while holding a Y-shaped stick.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

“Even if you’re guarding, don’t point your gun towards the citizens, direct it at your enemies. Yesterday I was seeing those young boys,” Museveni says in the clip as he makes shooting gestures towards the audience. “That’s very bad orientation. It means you don’t know who the enemy is.”

“Even if they say ‘control the crowd’, your gun should be on your back like this,” he adds, pointing at his own back.

Similar claims were published on elsewhere on TikTok, Facebook and X.

Shooting orders

The video was shared on the heels of Kenya’s 35th anniversary of the “Saba Saba” (Swahili for “Seven Seven”) pro-democracy protests of July 7, 1990, which paved the way for Kenya’s multi-party democracy (archived here).

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

This year’s Saba Saba commemorations were marked by nationwide protests, characterised by a violent police response, death, looting and destruction (archived here, here and here).

Ruto claimed the protests were an attempt by the opposition to “overthrow” his government, telling the police, “Anyone who burns down someone else’s business and property, let them be shot in the leg and go to the hospital as they head to court. Yes, let them not kill, but shoot and break the legs” (archived here and here).

The directive came just weeks after Kenya’s minister of interior and national administration, Kipchumba Murkomen, ordered police to shoot anybody approaching a police station, following similarly violent prior protests that saw several police stations vandalised (archived here and here).

However, the social media posts with a clip purportedly showing Museveni reacting to the recent events in Kenya are fals

Unrelated old video

At no point in the clip does Museveni mention Ruto, the Kenyan police or the recent protests.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

AFP Fact Check conducted reverse image searches for keyframes from the video, and the results established that the clip predates the recent unrest in Kenya.

The clip was originally published by Ugandan media outlet NBS Television on January 5, 2020 (archived here).

“President Museveni says that the Police should have their guns behind their backs when asked to control the crowd,” reads the post.

In both videos, the Ugandan leader is seen in identical attire, holding the same stick, and standing behind two microphones with yellow mic foam covers. An orange tent is also visible in the background.

Screenshots comparing the false post (left) and the original clip published by NBS Television

At the time, Museveni had embarked on a six-day trek dubbed “Africa Kwetu” (“Our Africa”), a 195-kilometre walk retracing the route his National Resistance Army (NRA) guerrilla forces took when they seized power in 1986 (archived here).

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

We found no credible source of evidence showing Museveni commenting on the recent demonstrations in Kenya.

However, he did speak about Kenya’s 2024 anti-tax protests, which culminated in a breach of parliament, warning Ugandan youth against staging similar protests in their own country (archived here and here).

ShortShifter Senior – BHPian

Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Hyderabad Posts: 1,049 Thanked: 1,931 Times

View My Garage

re: Air India Flight AI171 crashes near Ahmedabad airport. EDIT: Preliminary report on page 25

It is part of the closed loop/isolated system architecture that the Boeing 787 uses, It is clear to me one of the pilots deliberately pulled the switches and the other tried to reverse the horrific actions, the switch toggle sound and aircraft alarms consequent to the actions along with the ensuing fight/tussle between the pilots to re-initiate the cut off switches to “run” position would have been recorded in the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), transcripts of which are yet to be released.

The FAA directive for Honeywell manufactured 4TL837‑3D switches only says “few aircrafts did not have the locking feature functional” which would have obviously been reported long ago by the pilots of VT-ANB or another 787 back in 2018 itself when the directive was put out, which clearly did not occur till date. Even if the locking mechanism failed, the power needed to pull and engage this switches due to the spring action system holding the switches would be immense, way more than Takeoff/Rotate cabin vibration can accidentally induce.

Post crash analysis images of the switches clearly shows above that the final resting position of the switches were in “Run”, so this implies even the forces of the crash impact did not move/budge the position of the switches, this suggests there was no fault mechanically in the switches as suggested by most here.

The FDR data and no technical directive to Boeing/GE strongly suggests and confirms the above scenario. Remember the weakest link always, is mostly human not machines.

AAIB also clearly knows exactly which pilot would have engaged the cut off switches as well but pending investigation has decided not to release the CVR transcripts for confirmation. I would also commend AAIB of releasing a highly technical, well detailed and transparent Preliminary report of International standards.

Definitely not the kind of fate 259 lost souls would have ever imagined even in their worst nightmares. Om Shanti to the departed souls. Dear fellow countrymen, I hate to break it to you but this is turning out to be India’s version of German Wings. There is absolutely no way in a billion odds that these fuel control switches can be operated inadvertently due to software or hardware issue without manual-human input, these are fail safe mechanical switches which are connected directly to FADEC.It is part of the closed loop/isolated system architecture that the Boeing 787 uses, It is clear to me one of the pilots deliberately pulled the switches and the other tried to reverse the horrific actions, the switch toggle sound and aircraft alarms consequent to the actions along with the ensuing fight/tussle between the pilots to re-initiate the cut off switches to “run” position would have been recorded in the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), transcripts of which are yet to be released.The FAA directive for Honeywell manufactured 4TL837‑3D switches only says “few aircrafts did not have the locking feature functional” which would have obviously been reported long ago by the pilots of VT-ANB or another 787 back in 2018 itself when the directive was put out, which clearly did not occur till date. Even if the locking mechanism failed, the power needed to pull and engage this switches due to the spring action system holding the switches would be immense, way more than Takeoff/Rotate cabin vibration can accidentally induce.Post crash analysis images of the switches clearly shows above that the final resting position of the switches were in “Run”, so this implies even the forces of the crash impact did not move/budge the position of the switches, this suggests there was no fault mechanically in the switches as suggested by most here.The FDR data and no technical directive to Boeing/GE strongly suggests and confirms the above scenario. Remember the weakest link always, is mostly human not machines.AAIB also clearly knows exactly which pilot would have engaged the cut off switches as well but pending investigation has decided not to release the CVR transcripts for confirmation. I would also commend AAIB of releasing a highly technical, well detailed and transparent Preliminary report of International standards.Definitely not the kind of fate 259 lost souls would have ever imagined even in their worst nightmares. Om Shanti to the departed souls. Last edited by ShortShifter : 12th July 2025 at 11:55 .

The German government has cleared the way for the export of Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Turkey, removing a key obstacle to a major arms deal involving the United Kingdom.

German government spokesman Stefan Kornelius confirmed in Berlin on Wednesday that the Defence Ministry has sent written authorization to Ankara. The Turkish government must now decide whether to proceed with the order, he said.

The move follows an earlier announcement on Wednesday by the UK and Turkey, which signed a letter of intent to advance a potential deal for the sale of 40 Eurofighters.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

The jets are assembled in Britain as part of a multinational consortium involving Germany, Italy and Spain, meaning all four countries must approve any export deal.

The British Defence Ministry called the agreement a “significant step forward,” saying it would bolster NATO’s deterrence capabilities and support thousands of defence jobs.

British Defence Secretary John Healey described the potentially multibillion-pound deal as a “major milestone.”

Turkey seeks to modernize air defence

Turkey, which was ejected from the US-led F-35 fighter jet programme in 2019 after acquiring Russia’s S-400 missile defence system, is seeking to diversify its defence procurement.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

US officials argued at the time that the S-400 could compromise sensitive F-35 stealth data and pose a security risk.

The Turkish Defence Ministry told dpa on Wednesday that the planned Eurofighter purchase is not linked to the F-35 dispute, but is part of a broader strategy to modernize its air force.

Analysts have noted that Ankara will need to invest in new infrastructure and training before the jets can be delivered and become operational.

Export policy shift in Berlin

Germany’s involvement in the Eurofighter consortium had previously stalled the deal, as Berlin had not signed off on the necessary export licences.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

Arms deliveries to NATO partner Turkey have long been politically sensitive in Germany, due to concerns over Ankara’s human rights record and foreign interventions. After Turkey’s 2016 military operation in Syria, Berlin significantly scaled back arms exports.

But under the current conservative-led coalition of Chancellor Friedrich Merz, which took power in early May, export approvals have risen again.

Yet even before that, in September 2024, the Economy Ministry, led at the time by Green Party minister Robert Habeck, announced a broader resumption of arms deliveries to Turkey, including torpedoes, guided missiles and submarine components.

A forced recharge or damage control?

Burnout is now a retention issue

Lessons for students and early professionals

What does success look like to you?

Are you chasing prestige and pressure without pausing to ask how it will affect your mental health?

Do you want to work on the edge of innovation or the edge of exhaustion?

In a move that’s as surprising as it is revealing, OpenAI , one of the world’s most influential artificial intelligence labs, announced a mandatory one-week company-wide shutdown starting this July. While on the surface, it might seem like a generous summer break, insiders say the real reason is burnout. Employees have reportedly been clocking 80-hour work weeks, racing to maintain dominance in an industry experiencing both explosive growth and intense talent poaching, particularly from Meta’s new Super intelligence division.But this moment also shines a light on a deeper issue affecting the entire tech industry: burnout culture, and how even the most mission-driven organisations are now struggling to protect their people from the pressures of hyper-productivity.In a leaked Slack memo, OpenAI’s Chief Research Officer Mark Chen admitted the shutdown was partly to give employees a chance to “rest and recharge” after months of intense work. But it was also a defensive measure: Meta, which has already hired away several high-profile AI researchers, was allegedly planning to leverage this downtime to poach even more talent.This situation reveals an uncomfortable truth. In elite tech settings, burnout is not a personal failing — it’s built into the system.The shutdown isn’t a vacation. It’s a stopgap solution to prevent a brain drain.Traditionally, burnout was treated as a soft HR problem, something to be managed with wellness apps or Friday socials. But OpenAI’s move shows that burnout is now a strategic risk, capable of triggering mass attrition, disrupting projects, and costing billions in intellectual capital.As Meta lures researchers with compensation packages reportedly crossing $100 million, the price of overworking and under-caring for employees is becoming too high for even the most advanced companies to ignore.For years, companies like OpenAI have attracted top-tier talent by offering purpose-driven missions, high-impact roles, and the promise of shaping the future. But behind the utopian rhetoric, the day-to-day often involves exhausting hours, pressure to innovate faster than competitors, and little time to decompress.Burnout isn’t a new phenomenon in Silicon Valley. But when it reaches the very researchers building the future of artificial general intelligence, it forces the industry to ask: Is this level of intensity sustainable, even at the top?OpenAI’s shutdown also has a message for young aspirants dreaming of working at companies like OpenAI, Meta, or Google DeepMind. The stakes are high, but so is the cost of being in a high-performance environment without boundaries.If you’re a student or early-career tech worker, this moment is a good time to reflect:OpenAI’s researchers are some of the most capable minds on the planet, and even they need time to unplug.The larger question is whether this move by OpenAI is a trendsetter or a one-off reaction. Will more tech companies begin instituting mandatory rest periods? Will hustle culture be re-evaluated as a business risk? Or will the race for AI dominance override every human concern?Tech workers, especially the next generation, may begin choosing employers not just based on salaries or prestige, but on how they treat burnout — not with platitudes, but policies.

The charred remains of the ill-fated Boeing 787 Dreamliner that crashed outside Ahmedabad in June 2025 might have stopped making noise, but what lingers in the silence is far louder. 241 lives lost, not in war, not in a natural disaster, but in what could be the gravest indictment of institutional failure, corporate greed, regulatory complacency, and a complete collapse of accountability in Indian aviation. The crash was not a freak accident; it appears now, with mounting evidence and disturbing whistleblower accounts, to be a preventable tragedy, veiled under the carefully tailored corporate image of a national carrier that was once considered the jewel of the Indian skies.

Air India’s recent history is no stranger to turbulence. But what has unfolded in the past few weeks, the whispers of silenced employees, the unexplained silence of the DGCA, and the PR-gloved evasiveness of Air India’s top brass, threatens to rewrite the airline’s trajectory from a troubled national brand to a possibly hazardous corporate time bomb. One has to ask:

Is Air India becoming another dangerous airline, spiraling not just in the sky but ethically, operationally, and morally?

According to a report by the Times of India, two long-serving senior flight attendants of Air India, in a letter sent to the Prime Minister’s Office, claimed that the technical issue with the very Boeing 787 Dreamliner that crashed had been flagged a year before. Specifically, they identified a malfunction related to the aircraft’s door, which is a critical safety component.

Their warning, rather than followed with corrective action, was brutally welcomed with corporate punishment, as the whistleblower duo were terminated from their roles, allegedly for refusing to retract their statements. This forces us to think that this is not just a management dispute; it’s a damning suggestion that Air India may have knowingly dismissed warnings that may have prevented the deaths of 241 lives!

What kind of system punishes its truth-tellers and rewards its deniers? What kind of regulatory authority, in this case the DGCA, hears such reports and initiates merely an “informal inquiry”? What happened to the promise of rigorous oversight after the Mangalore crash of 2010, or the Kanishka bombing of 1985? Have we learned nothing, or have we learned to simply bury uncomfortable truths?

The whistleblowers’ letter accuses Air India and the DGCA of suppressing the last year May incident involving the same aircraft and excluding critical eyewitnesses from the investigation. Not only does this raise ethical questions, but it could emerge as a legal calamity; as these aren’t fringe voices; these are career crew members with over 2 decades of service each. Their complaint, filed with the Central Vigilance Commission, seems to have disappeared into the bureaucratic abyss.

If their allegations are true, and so far, no official has adequately or convincingly refuted them, then what occurred was not just an accident. It was murder by omission, death by negligence, and a cover-up stained with the blood of 241 innocent lives.

What We Could Witness Is A Pattern of Disasters: Whistleblowers from the Past

This is not the first time Air India has been accused of ignoring internal warnings. Go back to 2010, when an Air India Express Boeing 737-800 overshot the runway in Mangalore, killing 158 people. The inquiry concluded that the pilot had made critical errors, but insiders later revealed that pilot fatigue and poor rostering had been repeatedly brought to management’s attention. After the crash, a former AI pilot and whistleblower, Captain Mohan Ranganathan, slammed the DGCA for allowing airports like Mangalore to operate despite known safety limitations. His warnings, too, were largely ignored until it was too late.

The Kanishka bombing of 1985, though a terrorist attack was also preceded by intelligence failures and inadequate security procedures. Families of the victims have long claimed that Air India failed to act on preemptive warnings of possible attacks on its transatlantic routes. Four decades later, the institution seems to remain addicted to the very habit that haunts all bureaucratic setups: burying problems until they explode.

The Tata Acquisition: Are They Chasing Profits Over Passengers?

When the Tata Group reacquired Air India from the government in 2022, many considered it a homecoming. The Tatas had once founded the airline, and the public sentiment largely approved of the move. However, that nostalgia seems to be fading. The acquisition was a rosy return or it was a salvage mission? Air India came riddled with debt, bloated with bureaucratic inefficiencies, and equipped with an aging fleet. The Tatas inherited a mess, yes. But in seeking to make the airline leaner and more profitable, have they made it more dangerous?

There are growing concerns that cost-cutting measures may be compromising safety. Maintenance delays, overworked staff, and bare-minimum safety checks have begun to define the new Air India. After the recent crash, Air India CEO Campbell Wilson publicly stated that the aircraft was “well-maintained,” with its last major check in June 2023 and the next scheduled for December 2025. But what does “well-maintained” mean in a context where whistleblowers allege that mechanical faults were already known and ignored?

Why did Tata choose to continue operating and even expanding their fleet of Boeing 787s despite repeated global concerns about the Dreamliner series? Boeing itself has been under scrutiny in the U.S. for safety concerns, particularly with its 737 MAX series, but the 787 is no stranger to scrutiny either. In recent years, there have been multiple incidents involving battery fires, pressurization issues, and engine complications. If the Tata Group was aware of recurring issues of Boeing 787, through global data and its own crew, why did they continue business as usual?

This isn’t just miscalculation; it is dangerous gambling with human lives.

Why There Exists An Illusion Of Oversight?

India’s civil aviation sector is now the third-largest in the world by domestic passenger volume. It prides itself on modernization, innovation, and expansion. But beneath this glossy exterior is a regulatory body that has repeatedly failed to enforce its own rules. The DGCA, like many Indian institutions, is susceptible to political interference, underfunding, and a culture of complacency. It too has blood on its hands.

When the watchdog becomes the lapdog of powerful airline operators, the public becomes the ultimate casualty. The DGCA’s job is not to protect corporations from bad press; it is to ensure that every Indian who boards a plane can trust that the aircraft, the crew, and the institution responsible for both, are operating at the highest safety standards. Instead, what we see today is a regulatory framework that bends under pressure and breaks under scrutiny.

Are We Becoming A Nation Held Hostage By Silence?

Let us imagine, for a moment, the final moments of those 241 people aboard that doomed flight. Did they know something was wrong? Did the crew, familiar with the aircraft’s quirks and defects, feel helpless as the plane plunged toward its fatal end? These are not just numbers. These were students, parents, children, doctors, software engineers, newlyweds, elderly citizens. Their stories are gone now, sealed under the rubble of what might be corporate malpractice and institutional cowardice.

No statement from the airline. No visible outrage from Parliament. No promise of systemic overhaul from the DGCA. And worst of all, no legal action against those who may have knowingly put a faulty aircraft in the sky.

The absence of national mourning is perhaps the most chilling indicator of how numb we’ve become. But the silence of powerful institutions, the Tata Group, DGCA, and the Ministry of Civil Aviation screams complicity.

Who Will Be Held Accountable?

This is the question that must haunt every Indian now: who will be held accountable?

Will it be the whistleblowers, already sacked and sidelined?

Will it be the anonymous technicians or mid-level executives, conveniently scapegoated for systemic failure?

Will it be the CEO, who continues to issue bland reassurances while his fleet bleeds trust?

Or will it be the system itself, Air India, DGCA, Tata, and even the Central Government, which let this happen in the name of profits, prestige, and political convenience?

Someone must answer. And not with vague statements. But with resignation letters, criminal charges, and institutional reform.

Is There Any Road Ahead: Will It Be Reform Or Requiem?

The 2025 Air India crash must not become another data point in aviation history. It must become a national reckoning. India must overhaul not just its aviation protocols, but its entire culture of accountability.

Until whistleblowers are protected, rather than punished…

Until safety takes precedence over profitability…

Until regulators regulate, rather than appease…

We cannot say with certainty that boarding an Indian flight is safe.