world

Vienna – Austrian prosecutors have filed terrorism-related charges against a 21-year-old man accused of plotting an attack on Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour concert in August 2024. The charges come after the suspect’s arrest shortly before Swift was scheduled to begin a three-night run in the Austrian capital.

The suspect, identified by Austrian media as Beran A., is accused of planning an Islamist militant attack, according to a statement released by the Vienna prosecutors’ office on Monday. Prosecutors allege he declared allegiance to the Islamic State group by sharing propaganda material and videos online. The man allegedly attempted to illegally purchase weapons outside of Austria and bring them into the country.

Swift cancelled the Vienna concerts less than 24 hours before the first performance, following intelligence shared by the United States that indicated a credible threat. Then-White House national security spokesman John Kirby confirmed in August 2024 that the U.S. Had shared information with Austrian partners to “enable the disruption of a threat” to the concerts.

The investigation revealed the suspect had researched the construction of a shrapnel bomb using triacetone triperoxide, a substance commonly employed by Islamic State operatives and had produced a small quantity of the explosive.

The criminal case against the suspect will proceed in Wiener Neustadt, a town near Vienna. If convicted, he faces a potential prison sentence of up to 20 years.

The thwarted plot in Vienna followed an earlier incident in 2024 that impacted Swift and her fans. A Taylor Swift-themed dance class in England was targeted in an attack that resulted in fatalities, an event Swift acknowledged in her recently released Disney+ documentary, “The Conclude of an Era.”

Authorities had increased security measures throughout the Eras Tour due to the scale of the performances and the potential for threats. Swift herself described feeling stressed by the need to balance her concern for fan safety with the demands of the tour, as detailed in the documentary.

The suspect’s lawyer was not immediately available for comment, but has previously contested accusations against his client. The investigation remains ongoing, and Austrian authorities have not released further details regarding potential co-conspirators or the full extent of the planned attack.

Barcelona faces a crucial La Liga clash against Girona on Monday, February 16th, seeking to rebound from a damaging 4-0 defeat to Atlético Madrid in the Copa del Rey semifinals. The loss, coupled with Real Madrid’s 4-1 victory on Saturday, has seen Barcelona drop to second place in the league standings. The match at Estadi Montilivi presents an opportunity for Xavi’s side to regain the top spot, but Girona, battling to avoid relegation, will prove a stern test.

The stakes are high for both teams. Barcelona, aiming for a domestic double, cannot afford another slip-up in the title race. Girona, currently 15th in La Liga, are just two points above the relegation zone and desperately demand points to secure their top-flight status. Their recent form has been patchy, with a three-game winless run adding to the pressure.

Kickoff is scheduled for 9 p.m. Central European Time (CET), which translates to 3 p.m. Eastern Time (ET), noon Pacific Time (PT) in the US and Canada, 8 p.m. Greenwich Imply Time (GMT), and 7 a.m. Australian Eastern Daylight Time (AEDT) on Tuesday, February 17th, according to Sports Illustrated.

For viewers in the United States, the match will be available to stream on ESPN Select, offering both English and Spanish-language broadcasts. ESPN’s streaming options now include two tiers: ESPN Select, priced at $12 per month, which provides access to content previously available on ESPN Plus, and ESPN Unlimited, at $30 per month, offering a comprehensive package of ESPN networks and services, as detailed by CBS Sports.

Fans in the United Kingdom can watch the game exclusively on Premier Sports 1 and via the Premier Sports Player. A subscription to the dedicated La Liga channel costs £8 per month, while a full Premier Sports subscription is available for £10 per month for Sky and Virgin TV customers, or as an add-on through Prime Video for £15 per month, Sports Illustrated reports.

Canadian viewers can tune in on TSN 5 and TSN Plus, with TSN Plus subscriptions costing CA$8 per month and providing coverage of various sports including PGA Tour Live, NFL, and Formula 1. In Australia, BeIN Sports holds the broadcast rights, with BeIN Sports Connect offering live coverage for AU$16 per month or an annual commitment of AU$160.

Recent Form and Key Considerations

Barcelona’s recent 4-0 defeat to Atlético Madrid in the Copa del Rey was a significant setback, exposing defensive vulnerabilities that have been a recurring theme since Hansi Flick took over as manager in 2024-2025, according to CBS Sports. While their attack remains potent, defensive frailties have been exploited by teams including Club Brugge and Slavia Praha. Girona, meanwhile, have struggled for consistency at home, winning only three of their matches at the Estadi Montilivi this season.

How to Watch in Key Regions

Here’s a quick guide to accessing the match based on location:

• United States: ESPN Select
• United Kingdom: Premier Sports 1 & Premier Sports Player
• Canada: TSN 5 & TSN Plus
• Australia: BeIN Sports Connect

The match represents a critical juncture in La Liga’s title race. A win for Barcelona would restore their lead at the top of the table, while a victory for Girona would significantly boost their survival hopes. The outcome at Estadi Montilivi will undoubtedly have implications for both ends of the La Liga standings.

Following this match, Barcelona will return to action with another key La Liga fixture, while Girona will continue their fight against relegation. The coming weeks will be decisive for both clubs as they pursue their respective goals in the Spanish top flight.

What are your predictions for the Girona vs. Barcelona match? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Gaza City, Gaza Strip – Hamas has accused Israeli authorities of “systematic abuse” against Palestinians crossing the Rafah border crossing, the sole remaining passage for people entering and exiting the Gaza Strip. The allegations, made public on Monday, center on claims of physical and psychological mistreatment, hostile interrogations, and violations of agreed-upon protocols within the current ceasefire agreement. The Rafah crossing has become a critical point of contention as international efforts focus on delivering aid and facilitating the evacuation of wounded civilians from the besieged enclave.

The accusations come as the implementation of the ceasefire agreement, brokered by Qatar, Egypt, the United States, and other regional actors, faces challenges. Hamas alleges that Israel is failing to meet daily quotas for the passage of individuals, jeopardizing the lives of thousands of patients and injured people awaiting medical attention outside of Gaza. The situation at Rafah underscores the fragility of the truce and the ongoing difficulties in providing humanitarian assistance to the territory.

According to a statement released by the Palestinian militant group, Israeli forces are also allegedly utilizing “bands of outlaws and militias” to interrogate, intimidate, and threaten those returning to Gaza. These claims, if substantiated, raise serious concerns about the rule of law and the protection of civilians at the border crossing. Hamas is calling on international mediators and guarantors of the agreement to urgently intervene to ensure the Rafah crossing operates in accordance with international humanitarian standards.

The Hamas-controlled government in Gaza reports that, since the partial reopening of the Rafah crossing on February 2nd, 455 individuals have exited the Gaza Strip, while 356 have entered, and 26 have returned after previously leaving. However, these figures fall significantly short of the anticipated 2,800 crossings in both directions, representing a compliance rate of just 29 percent, according to the Gaza government’s calculations. This discrepancy is at the heart of Hamas’s complaints.

Israel confirmed on Sunday the evacuation of approximately 320 patients and their accompanying caregivers through the Rafah crossing, as reported by The Times of Israel. However, the Gaza Ministry of Health estimates that around 20,000 patients are currently awaiting evacuation, including individuals suffering from severe conditions such as cancer, heart disease, kidney failure, and serious injuries. The limited capacity for evacuation, coupled with restrictions on the number of accompanying persons – currently limited to two per patient – is creating a significant bottleneck.

At the current rate of evacuation, with priority given to the wounded, it would capture approximately 187 weeks, or more than three and a half years, to evacuate all those in need of medical care from Gaza, according to estimates from the Gaza Ministry of Health. This slow pace highlights the urgent need for increased capacity and streamlined procedures at the Rafah crossing.

The Rafah crossing’s operation is now overseen by the Palestinian Authority (PA), with employees moving to the Egyptian-Palestinian border to assume their duties, as reported by the Associated Press. This shift is part of a U.S.-brokered peace plan aimed at establishing a more sustainable framework for managing the border and facilitating the flow of people, and goods. President Mahmoud Abbas has stated the PA is ready to assume “full responsibility” in post-war Gaza, according to The Times of Israel, though the role of Hamas remains a key point of contention.

The current situation at Rafah reflects the complex political and logistical challenges facing the region. While the ceasefire agreement represents a step towards de-escalation, the allegations of abuse and the slow pace of evacuations underscore the need for continued international pressure on all parties to uphold their commitments and prioritize the well-being of civilians. The future of the Rafah crossing, and its ability to serve as a lifeline for the people of Gaza, remains uncertain.

Looking ahead, the effectiveness of the ceasefire agreement will depend on the ability of mediators to address these concerns and ensure the smooth and dignified passage of individuals through the Rafah crossing. The international community will be closely monitoring the situation, and further diplomatic efforts may be required to prevent a resurgence of violence and ensure the delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid.

What are your thoughts on the challenges facing the Rafah crossing? Share your comments below and join the conversation.

The death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has prompted renewed scrutiny of the Kremlin’s tactics, with investigators focusing on a particularly unusual alleged murder weapon: a potent toxin derived from poison dart frogs. Known as epibatidine, the substance’s use raises questions not only about the method of Navalny’s death but also whether the choice was intended as a deliberate signal.

The UK government has stated that only the Russian state possessed the capability, motive, and opportunity to deploy the lethal toxin, holding them responsible for Navalny’s death. This assertion comes as experts grapple with the implications of using such a rare and difficult-to-detect poison. The use of epibatidine in the killing of Navalny, a prominent critic of Vladimir Putin, has sparked international condemnation and fueled speculation about the message Moscow intended to send.

Epibatidine is a powerful painkiller, reportedly hundreds of times more potent than morphine, and causes muscle paralysis, ultimately leading to asphyxiation. “Your chest wall doesn’t expand and contract, so essentially you can’t breathe and you’re [suffocated],” explained Alastair Hay, emeritus professor of environmental toxicology at the University of Leeds. Disturbingly, according to Hay, “There isn’t an antidote to this [poison] that I know of.”

While seemingly exotic, epibatidine isn’t entirely obscure. It has been studied for its potential as a pain reliever, particularly for lung conditions like pulmonary fibrosis and sarcoidosis, but its extreme toxicity has prevented therapeutic use. Researchers, including those in Russia, have reportedly been synthesizing chemicals with similar structures, hoping to harness the analgesic properties without the deadly side effects. “Because its structure is known, it can be synthesised in the lab,” Hay noted. “It’s a more complicated chemical structure, but competent chemists are not going to have a problem making it.” Epibatidine and its analogues are even available for research purposes online.

A History of Poisonings

Russia has a documented history of employing poison against perceived enemies. In 2006, former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko died after being poisoned with radioactive polonium-210 slipped into his tea. More recently, in 2018, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia survived poisoning with the nerve agent novichok, a substance that later claimed the life of Dawn Sturgess, a 44-year-old woman. Russia is known to possess a poison factory in Moscow and, as Hay points out, “very, very competent chemists.”

UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper suggested the use of epibatidine was a deliberate act of intimidation. “Russia saw Navalny as a threat. By using this form of poison the Russian state demonstrated the despicable tools it has at its disposal and the overwhelming fear it has of political opposition,” she said.

Detection and Deniability

However, the intent behind the choice of poison remains debated. Some experts believe the difficulty in detecting epibatidine was a primary motivation. “I think it would be very difficult to detect it, and that would probably be one of the reasons why it was used,” Hay stated, adding that the poison’s potency means only trace amounts would be present in the body. The identification of the toxin, he suggests, is a testament to advanced analytical instruments and crucially, access to samples from Navalny’s body – samples his widow, Yulia Navalnaya, has stated were smuggled out of Russia.

Dr. Brett Edwards, an expert in biological and chemical weapons at the University of Bath, argued that if the goal was complete deniability, other poisons or methods would have been more effective. “If they wanted to do it quietly, they wouldn’t have used a toxin,” he said. He pointed out that Navalny was held in a high-security prison, making the introduction of any substance highly controlled. Edwards also noted the Russian state delayed releasing Navalny’s body, potentially to hinder analysis.

Signaling or Simply a Weapon of Choice?

Dr. Luca Trenta, an associate professor of international relations at Swansea University, believes the case differs from previous poisonings, such as those targeting Litvinenko and the Skripals, where the message of reach and capability was overt. “It was not like with the Skripals or with Litvinenko in which it was clearly impossible to hide,” he said. “This one, if it had not been for a fairly long effort at getting some samples and some testing out, it might not have been discovered.” Trenta suggested Russia may have been testing the use of epibatidine, showcasing its capabilities if discovered, or simply employing a particularly gruesome weapon in retaliation.

“If there is a signal to be sent here [it] is Russia’s ability to use these weapons, to produce these weapons. And in a sense, its disregard for international norms and international law,” Trenta said. “But again, it’s a tricky case when it comes to signalling, because if it was a signalling matter perhaps it would have been more overt.” Edwards concluded that regardless of the intent, the act itself is a continuation of a disturbing pattern. “It’s intriguing, but it’s just murder. It’s just standard political murder. They’ve always done it. They’ll keep doing it.”

The investigation into Navalny’s death continues, and further analysis may shed more light on the circumstances surrounding his death and the motivations behind the alleged use of epibatidine. The international community remains focused on holding those responsible accountable and understanding the broader implications of this case for political opposition in Russia and beyond.

What are your thoughts on the implications of this case? Share your comments below and join the conversation.