TIME Archaeology

Over 200 Paintings Discovered in Cambodia’s Angkor Wat

Angkor Wat Hidden Painting
Antiquity Publications

Sceintists found ancient graffiti in a monument thousands of tourists pass through every day

Hundreds of paintings were discovered in the 12th century Cambodian temple complex Angkor Wat hiding in plain sight.

Though thousands of people pass through the religious monument every day, nobody had ever noticed the ancient graffiti on the faded walls. Researcher Noel Hidalgo Tan first saw the red and black pigment on the walls of the monument when he visited and decided to investigate, Smithsonian Magazine reports. After scientists took pictures using an intense flash, they then used a tool from NASA to digitally enhance the colors of the images.

They found more than 200 ancient images of animals and boats and people, among other things, according to Antiquity, a quarterly archeology review.

Scientists hypothesize that the images are actually graffiti left long ago by visitors when the temple was abandoned in 1431, American Association for the Advancement of Science reported. Archaeologists hope to gain a new perspective on Cambodia’s history through the lost images.

TIME Aviation

Australia Says Missing Jet Is Outside Search Area

Malaysia Airline Search Area
A member of staff at satellite communications company Inmarsat, who helped analyze "pings" via satellite, works in front of a screen showing subscribers using their service throughout the world at their headquarters in London on March 25, 2014. Andrew Winning—Reuters

The search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 will now shift again

The Malaysia Airlines plane missing since March is outside the region of the Indian Ocean that search teams have been scouring for weeks, officials said on Thursday.

A U.S. Navy underwater vehicle had been searching the ocean floor for Flight 370 since early April, after searchers detected acoustic signals in the area that they believed to be coming from the plane’s black box. But the Australia-based joint search agency said Thursday the plane isn’t in the vicinity of those pings.

“The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has advised that the search in the vicinity of the acoustic detections can now be considered complete and in its professional judgement, the area can now be discounted as the final resting place of MH370,” the Joint Agency Coordination Centre said in a statement.

The plane bound from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing went missing on March 8 with 239 people aboard, and has become the longest disappearance—and the most expensive search—in modern commercial aviation history. Transmission data suggests the plane took a sharp turn off course and landed somewhere in the Indian Ocean. The search will now move to a much wider section of the ocean, encompassing up to 23,166 square miles.

TIME Ukraine

Ukraine’s New Leader Clings to His TV Channel

Petro Poroshenko
Ukrainian presidential candidate and businessman Petro Poroshenko briefs the media after a meeting with Germany's Christian Union's faction law makers in Berlin on May 7, 2014. Markus Schreiber—AP

Pro-Russian rebels have tried to force it off the air. Western media watchdogs have criticized its ties to politics. But Ukraine's new President won't part with what some observers call his "favorite toy," the news network Channel 5.

Early in his campaign to become Ukraine’s President, Petro Poroshenko promised to sell off his business empire to concentrate on the task of governing. Among the first to go for Poroshenko, the billionaire who was elected last weekend, will be his mammoth confectionary company Roshen, which earned him the bulk of his fortune—as well as his nickname, The Chocolate King. But to the frustration of many supporters in Ukraine and in the West, he has refused to sell his most prized asset: the television news network Channel 5.

Although former staffers there say he never interfered in editorial policy, media watchdogs have grown concerned about possible conflicts of interest. “If Mr. Poroshenko intends to sell his assets, in my view, his TV station should be the first to go,” says Dunja Mijatovic, the top official for media freedom at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, an intergovernmental body that monitors censorship, elections, human rights and conflicts around the world. “It is my firm view that elected politicians should not own and control media outlets in their country, be it Ukraine, Italy or any other, so as not to use and abuse them to serve their political goals,” she added in a statement to TIME.

At a news conference marking his election victory on Monday, Poroshenko addressed the issue of his business holdings, which have been a sticking point in his campaign from the beginning. The regime of his predecessor, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown in February partly because of the fortunes his family amassed while in office. Poroshenko pledged Monday to break from that practice and “lay a new tradition” in Ukrainian politics, one that would ensure a leader “gets rid of his business, sells it and concentrates all of his energy, all of his time on serving the people.”

But in the same breath, Poroshenko said Channel 5 would not be sold. Asked to explain this decision, he said: “First of all, it’s because Channel 5 has never been sold and will not be sold.” Its coverage of both of Ukraine’s post-Soviet uprisings—the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Maidan revolt that toppled Yanukovych this winter—has been “exceptionally important,” Poroshenko added. “Sometimes Channel 5 criticizes me even more harshly than anyone else.”

Many in Ukraine would dispute that, not least of all the pro-Russian separatists who have taken control of large parts of the country’s eastern regions. Some of the fiercest battles the rebels have waged against Ukrainian police and security forces have been over control of local television towers. Their aim in seizing these massive antennas has been to beam in Russian state TV, which Ukraine has tried to block from the airwaves as a source of Russian disinformation and propaganda. The scramble to claim these broadcast frequencies has amounted to a war for hearts and minds.

Yet in many cases, the rebels have allowed some Ukrainian networks to stay on the air in the parts of Donetsk they control. “Let the people compare,” says Pavel Mikhalev, the main broadcast engineer for the separatist forces in that region. (Apart from manning the TV tower control rooms, he also runs a rebel radio station on the frequency 90.5 FM.) “Let the people use their heads and see who’s telling the truth,” he tells TIME. But his tolerance for Ukrainian coverage of the conflict does not extend to Channel 5, which he took off the air as soon as his comrades seized the Donetsk TV headquarters in late April. “That’s because they’re intolerable,” he says of Poroshenko’s channel. “They’re just bald-faced liars.”

This aversion to the network’s coverage is, at least in part, rooted in historical associations. Channel 5 emerged as one of the most popular news sources in the country a decade ago, when it threw its support behind the pro-Western leaders of the Orange Revolution of 2004. The channel was only a couple years old at the time, “full of young crazy people with very little TV experience,” says one of its first senior editors, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “When that revolution broke out, we went into a non-stop marathon mode, round the clock coverage. We became the mouthpiece of the Orange cause.”

Poroshenko, who was then a member of parliament, entered into an alliance at the time with the leader of the Orange Revolution, Viktor Yushchenko, who went on to become Ukraine’s President in 2005. Poroshenko then served in top posts during Yushchenko’s tenure, including stints as Foreign Minister and chairman of the central bank. Under the presidency of Yanukovych, who was elected in 2010, Poroshenko also briefly served as Minister of Trade and Economic Development. All the while, he maintained ownership of his businesses, including the chocolate factories and Channel 5.

Like Poroshenko himself, the channel’s coverage has always been staunchly in favor of Ukraine’s integration with the West—a position that earned it the ire of millions of people in eastern and southern Ukraine, where people tend to favor closer ties with Russia. For the past decade, viewers in these regions have had the option of simply changing the channel, tuning into one of the Russian news networks that were accessible across Ukraine instead. But in March, when the Russian military occupied Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, the interim government in Kiev banned the transmission of all Russian channels as a threat to national security.

Poroshenko has been a firm supporter of this policy from its inception, arguing that Russian propaganda is at the root of the separatist rebellions in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. During a television appearance on May 12, he even demanded that the Ukrainian security services take more drastic measures to keep local TV towers out of separatist control. “Rig them with explosives if you have to,” Poroshenko said. “No matter what, we cannot allow this poisonous Russian propaganda across all of Donetsk and Luhansk. That is what creates big problems.”

Though extreme, this approach to information policy was not Poroshenko’s invention. Taking its lessons from Ukraine’s experience with separatist rebels, the Central Asian dictatorship of Uzbekistan, which is also home to a large population of ethnic Russians, reportedly ordered all TV and radio towers to be rigged with explosives last month.

But while Uzbekistan is an autocratic hermit state, Ukraine is a pluralistic democracy with the aim of joining the European Union, so its policy of banning foreign TV channels has already raised concerns about media freedom. Mijatovic, the journalism watchdog at the OSCE, criticized the practice in a 14-page report on media freedom in Ukraine on May 23. “No matter how loud and outrageous certain voices are, they will not prevail in a competitive and vibrant marketplace of ideas,” she wrote. “Therefore, any potentially problematic speech should be countered with arguments and more speech, rather than engaging in censorship.”

Prominent Ukrainian journalists have also spoken out against what they perceive to be the erosion of journalistic standards, particularly at Channel 5. During the election campaign, the network gave its owner abundant air time while skimping on coverage of his rivals, wrote Sergiy Leshchenko, one of Ukraine’s top investigative reporters, in a recent piece of media criticism. “Of course Poroshenko, as the boss, can use his property however he sees fit,” he wrote. But then he cannot claim to be any different from Ukraine’s other oligarchs, “who see the media as an instrument of political battle,” Leshchenko added.

The rebuke seems unfair to some of Poroshenko’s former employees, who note that within two years of creating the channel, he signed an agreement with the editorial staff banning him from exerting any influence on its coverage. “We never felt any interference, at least while I was there,” says the former editor, who worked at the channel throughout the Orange Revolution.

These days, the supporters of that revolution, primarily the younger, more progressive voters of western and central Ukraine, form the core of Poroshenko’s electorate. “And don’t forget, this is also the main audience of Channel 5,” says Taras Berezovets, a political consultant in Kiev. “Owning that channel allows him to maintain the connection with his base.” Yet as Berezovets points out, there has never been a President in Ukraine’s history who directly owned a major media outlet, let alone one of the country’s most popular TV channels. “But this is his favorite toy,” Berezovets says. “And if he ever does agree to sell it—which I doubt—it will be the last thing he ever sells.”


Pictures of the Week: May 23 – May 30

From the Santa Barbara drive-by shootings and Ukrainian presidential elections, to martial law in Thailand and Kim and Kanye’s wedding extravaganza, TIME presents the best pictures of the week.




Report: Iranians Spied On U.S. Officials Using Social Media

Cybersecurity experts claim to have uncovered a complex operation across multiple social platforms

Iranian agents adopted fake identities on multiple social networks to extract information from about 2,000 U.S. officials, a new report claims. Operating since 2011, the agents fabricated personas and an entire news organization in order to befriend and phish personal data from a range of U.S. officials, according to iSight Partners, a cybersecurity firm that authored the report.

“We infer, from our limited knowledge of NEWSCASTER targeting, that such intelligence could ultimately support the development of weapon systems, provide insight into the disposition of the U.S. military or the U.S. alliance with Israel, or impart an advantage in negotiations between Iran and the U.S., especially with regards to sanctions and proliferation issues,” said iSight’s report.

The researchers inferred the agents were located in Iran based on their operating hours, weekly schedule and the nature of their targets, who were based not only in the U.S. but also in the U.K., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

The Dallas-based iSight Partners works primarily with business and government entities.

TIME White House

Joe Biden Is Going to the World Cup

Vice President Joe Biden walks to the stage during the graduation ceremony for the United States Air Force Academy class of 2014 at Falcon Stadium in Colorado Springs, Colo. on May 28, 2014. Michael Ciaglo—AP

Because YOLO!

Vice President Joe Biden will attend the World Cup match between the U.S. and Ghana in Brazil on June 16.

The White House confirmed Thursday that Biden will join fans at the game in Natal, Brazil during a trip to that country, Colombia and the Dominican Republic. He’s also scheduled to meet with the leaders of each of the countries—including Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, for whom it’s likely to be a particularly busy month, and Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos, days after a runoff election in his country will determine if he’ll be serving another term.

The game will be the opening match for the U.S. World Cup team. It’s also the contest the team has the best chance of winning — they’re also slated to face Portugal and Germany, playing in what is considered one of the toughest groups of the competition.


Robert Capa’s Iconic D-Day Photo of a Soldier in the Surf

Watch the video that shows how the famed photojournalist's negatives were almost lost

Robert Capa in Portsmouth, England on June 6, 1944. David Scherman—Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images

The story behind Robert Capa’s iconic shot of a soldier in the surf at Normandy, one of the most celebrated pictures of the Second World War, is nearly as complex as it is incredible. In 1944, Capa, later a co-founder of the photography collective Magnum, was assigned to cover the Allied invasion of Normandy by LIFE picture editor John G. Morris. Capa, then 30 years old, was one of only 18 American photographers given credentials from the U.S. Armed Forces to cover the preparation for the invasion, and one of only four credentialed to land on the beaches of Normandy alongside American troops.

Dropped nearly 100 yards from the beach during the first wave of the invasion, Capa waded through waist-deep water dodging heavy fire and carrying three cameras. He managed through careful maneuvering to make it to land, where he alternated between taking cover and making pictures as troops made the same deadly journey to shore. In the 90 minutes that he spent on the beach, Capa witnessed men shot, blown up and set on fire all around him.

Huston Riley, circa 1944. Courtesy of Charlotte Riley

At nearly the same time, a young GI, now known to be Huston Riley, disembarked from his landing craft into water over his head — and sank straight to the bottom, weighed down by his gear. Riley activated his flotation device and quickly became a sitting duck for German machine gun fire as he bobbed on the surface. Over the course of 30 minutes, Riley made his way to shore while bullets ricocheted off his shoes and pack. Just as he hit land and began to run, Riley caught four bullets in his right shoulder, two of which stayed lodged in his body. Two men quickly came and helped him reach cover, one of whom, Riley later recalled, had a camera around his neck. The photographer was Capa, and somewhere between the moment when Riley reached the surf and when he was being lifted, wounded, out of the water, Capa made the photo that for generations has defined the chaos and the courage witnessed on D-Day.

The journey of Capa’s film that followed, explained in detail in the video above by Capa’s editor and longtime friend, John G. Morris, was almost equally as perilous. Capa’s film survived only because he carried it off the beach himself. His colleague Bob Landry’s film, along with the film of nine other photographers and cinematographers, was lost, having been handed off to a colonel who dropped the whole pack in the ocean while boarding a transport ship. And although Capa shot approximately 106 frames on the beach, only a handful have survived. Though the exact number of surviving frames is uncertain, the actual negative of the picture known as The Face in the Surf, along with another from the set, was lost sometime after the photo’s publication in the June 19, 1944 issue of LIFE. It is, in a sense, a testament to the incalculable hardship and violence of the Longest Day that the only surviving photographic record of the Omaha Beach landing from the beach itself are nine hard-won, fragile, immensely powerful negatives.

Editor’s note: This video has been updated to include a photo illustration credit.

TIME Religion

Extremism Is a Concept Alien to Islam–And to Human Decency

Like hundreds of other Ahmadi Muslims, Dr. Mehdi Ali Qamar was murdered only for his faith. Combined, education and compassion can conquer such extremism.

Dr. Mehdi Ali Qamar was the type of friend every American would proudly brag about. He was a loyal U.S. citizen. He was only 50, a loving husband and father of three. He dedicated his life to medicine and to finding ways to stop the suffering of others. He was only on day two of a three-week humanitarian mission to Pakistan to provide free healthcare to the needy when he was fatally shot a dozen times in the early morning of May 26, in front of his wife and two-year-old son—who watched in horror.

Like hundreds of other Ahmadi Muslims, Qamar was murdered only for his faith. He was murdered because he was an Ahmadi Muslim—a Muslim who believes in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. It is for this belief alone that Ahmadi Muslims face intense persecution in nations like Pakistan.

And while some critics are quick to point to such murders as examples of alleged “Islamic” terrorism, few have the education or compassion to see the peaceful and patient response as examples of Islamic teaching. While such religious violence leads to both loss of life and additional fear of Muslims and Islam, ironically, therein lies the key to counter such loss and fear.

For Ahmadi Muslims, these death threats, and the days of most intense pain after a loved one is murdered, are the opportunity to reassert a campaign for humanity based on education and compassion. The extremists sending Ahmadi Muslims death threats are the same extremists killing Christians, spewing anti-Semitism and demanding theocratic rule. They are the ones promoting death for blasphemy laws, opposing female equity and equality and demanding suffocating restrictions on individual expression and thought. These are the ones hell-bent on a barbaric violent Jihad of the sword—a concept alien to Islam and human decency.

Thus, rather than pointing fingers at each other, this is our opportunity to unite against such intolerance wherever it exists. And this call to unity can manifest itself in any number of ways. So it wasn’t just the threats of murder, but the murdered themselves—like Qamar’s death painfully reminds me—who convinced me to write The Wrong Kind of Muslim and tell the story that millions can’t under threat of death. Thus, I believe all people of all backgrounds can unite on the following two principles.

First, I am beyond disgusted that terrorists and extremists dominate what Christians, Jews, atheists and other non-Muslim groups hear about Islam. I am a Muslim for peace, I exist and my voice deserves a platform. Dr. Mehdi Ali’s voice deserves a platform. His acts of service to and love of humanity deserve a platform. And millions of Muslims in Pakistan and worldwide exist who reject terrorism, extremism, intolerance and oppression deserve a platform too. The Wrong Kind of Muslim, for example, is just one attempt to tell the story they can’t tell, often under penalty of death—but it is a story that must be told. Thus, we have the chance to unite on the principle that education is an irreplaceable element to combat extremism.

But education alone is not enough.

Second, compassion must supplement that education. I believe that every human being of any faith or of no faith has the fundamental human right to believe or not believe as they wish. I believe no person, no government, no religious authority has the right to interfere in an individual’s personal beliefs. I believe that we are all equal human beings and our differences are not a source of division, but of recognition and strength. I believe that only when we recognize our differences, instead of glazing over them like they don’t exist, will any meaningful understanding of one another come to fruition. Thus, compassion for humanity and interaction with humanity melts away fear of one another.

Combined, education and compassion can conquer extremism. Education arms us against internal ignorance, and compassion compels us to engage in external collaboration. United, we can repeal Pakistan’s barbaric anti-blasphemy and anti-Ahmadi laws, avenge those lost to violence by ensuring a peaceful future and ensure we write the right narrative of humanity with tolerance—not terrorism.

But until we gain a critical and unified mass, the murders will continue—of Christians, Hindus, Shia Muslims and atheists, among others. May 28th marked the 4-year anniversary that the Taliban murdered 86 Ahmadi Muslims in broad daylight, and in response both Pakistan and Muslim leadership have remained silent. Qamar was murdered just this week—only for his faith. Last week another Ahmadi Muslim, Khalil Ahmad, was murdered while in police custody—only for his faith. And beware, next week approaches quickly.

Whatever your faith, I am here to convince you that we must remain united against extremism wherever it lies.

Countless people who you would have loved to call your friend are dying to convince you—educate yourselves, and have the compassion to listen.

Qasim Rashid is an attorney, author, and national spokesperson for Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA. He is the author of EXTREMIST: A Response to Geert Wilders & Terrorists Everywhere. Follow him @MuslimIQ.

TIME Addiction

Scientists to WHO: Don’t Classify E-Cigs As Tobacco Products

A woman smokes a "Blu" e-cigarette in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25, 2013.
A woman smokes a "Blu" e-cigarette in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25, 2013. Jim Watson—AFP/Getty Images

The move by the WHO would push 178 countries to impose tough restrictions on the products, which some scientists say provide a less harmful alternative for smokers.

A group of 53 top scientists warned the World Health Organization Thrusday not to classify e-cigarettes in the same category as other tobacco products, a move that would lead to significant restrictions on the devices in most countries around the world.

The scientists say that electronic cigarettes are in fact “part of the solution” in the fight against smoking because they can provide a healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes, Reuters reports.

“Even though most of us would prefer people to quit smoking and using nicotine altogether, experience suggests that many smokers cannot or choose not to give up nicotine and will continue to smoke if there is no safer alternative available that is acceptable to them,” the scientists wrote.

The devices have exploded in use and spawned a $3 billion industry worldwide, but the scientific research on their safety and their potential to be a “gateway” to other tobacco products is still developing.

If the WHO were to classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products—a move they are rumored to be considering, according to Reuters—178 signatories to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control would be expected to impose strict measures on them to restrict demand, like raising taxes and banning some forms of advertising. The U.S. is one of the few non-signatories to the FCTC, though the Food and Drug Administration has moved to regulate e-cigs.

The FCTC is scheduled to meet in October in Moscow, where it will consider any proposed regulations.


Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser