A new video released by ISIS is titled “Story of Slaughter“, and features five men accused of being members of the New Syrian Army being beheaded. Four of them had their severed heads impaled in spikes.
Index of articles
Shockwave therapy is the new sildenafil. It actually cures erectile dysfunction and causes. You can do your own shockwave therapy. Just dangle your dick in front of the subwoofer, and turn your ghetto blaster to full power.
Why America Cares About Chemical Weapons
On April 6, Donald Trump initiated his first war, by launching dozens of cruise missiles against the Syrian regime, following its use of chemical weapons. U.S. officials have offered a variety of motives for the use of force—but many of them aren’t compelling. First of all, there’s the need to defend American credibility when opponents cross a red line. This may help to explain why the United States launched cruise missiles, but not why the red line was originally drawn around the use of chemical weapons. In addition, Trump claimed that Syria had “violated its obligations” under the Chemical Weapons Convention. But he’s shown little interest before in the value of global legal structures. Trump also said the attack might kick start a peace process: “I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria.” But the American strike has only widened divisions with Russia and Iran.
Perhaps the most powerful argument for the attack is the unique horror of chemical weapons. Trump claimed that chemical weapons are “very barbaric” particularly when employed against a “child of God.” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer suggested that a chemical strike is the worst possible act of war: “You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons.” (Given the employment of gas chambers in the Holocaust, Spicer later apologized for a misplaced analogy.)
But are chemical weapons really uniquely horrific? Using sarin nerve gas against innocent civilians is undoubtedly evil. But chemical weapons are not exceptionally terrible in the scale of suffering. In Syria, for every civilian murdered in a chemical attack, hundreds have been killed by conventional means. Neither are chemical weapons uniquely brutal in the manner of death. Asphyxiation by gas is truly horrifying—as is being lacerated by shells or tortured to death in Bashar al-Assad’s gulag archipelago.
The focus on the means of killing, rather than the amount of killing, can seem arbitrary. During the Rwandan genocide in 1994, Hutu militias killed 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus with machetes and small arms. Let’s imagine that the militias followed this up by murdering a further 80 Tutsis in a chemical weapons attack. It would be absurd if the international community ignored the genocide, and then intervened after the chemical strike.
The core underlying reason for the U.S. air strike is rarely if ever discussed in public: upholding the norm against chemical weapons gives the United States a strategic edge, by helping the U.S. military win wars.
U.S. officials want to keep warfare limited to a traditional model where one army fights another army on a clear battlefield, and everyone wears uniforms. The reason is that the United States will almost always emerge victorious. Ask Mexico, the Confederacy, Spain, Germany, Japan, Grenada, Panama, or Iraq, what it’s like to fight a straight up conventional war against the U.S. military. Today, Washington is pouring billions of dollars into big-ticket hardware like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which further entrenches America’s advantage in conventional fighting.
The United States has an interest in shaping global norms so that tactics and technologies that fit the traditional model are viewed as “good war” or morally acceptable. This includes bombing, shelling, and shooting. Just last week, the United States dropped “the mother of all bombs,” or the 21,000-pound Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, on an ISIS position in Afghanistan.
At first glance, drones might seem like a morally dubious technology. Hundreds of civilians have died as a result of U.S. drone strikes around the world. Insurgent groups like Hezbollah have begun to use primitive drones. Terrorists could easily employ drones to deliver bombs. One might think that Western countries would push for some kind of international convention to prohibit or limit their use. But the U.S. military finds drones extremely useful. And so, there’s barely a squeak from official Washington about the ethics of flying robots of death.
By contrast, other tactics and technologies that deviate from the conventional war template are treated as “bad war” or illegitimate. This includes anything that might level the playing field or give weaker actors a fighting chance, like terrorism or insurgency.
Which brings us to chemical weapons. The United States has an interest in preventing the use of chemical weapons. The U.S. military doesn’t need these tools in the same way it needs drones. Chemical weapons would complicate life in wartime for American soldiers, who would have to carry protective gear. Chemical weapons also have an undoubted psychological impact that terrorists and rogue states could utilize.
Therefore, the United States and other powerful actors cultivate the image of chemical weapons as the epitome of barbarism. Boosting the perceived evil, chemical weapons are lumped in with nuclear and biological weapons in the famed “weapons of mass destruction” category—even though nuclear weapons are vastly more dangerous.
A good test of whether the chemical weapons taboo is really about ethics or interests is to ask how the United States would respond if an ally used these weapons. Fortunately—or unfortunately—such a test exists. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Saddam Hussein was viewed as a secular sentinel holding back radical theocratic Iran. When Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988, killing 6,800 civilians, the United States barely even protested. Washington knew that Saddam was to blame, but U.S. diplomats were nevertheless instructed to say that Iran was partly responsible. Washington pushed a UN Security Council resolution that muddied the waters by calling on both Iraq and Iran “to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons.”
Sometimes, the United States moves tactics from the bad war box to the good war box. Traditionally, the assassination of foreign leaders was held to be morally reprehensible. In 1938, the British military attaché in Berlin suggested assassinating Adolf Hitler to avert a European war, but London rejected the plot as “unsportsmanlike.” In the 1970s, President Gerald Ford issued an executive order renouncing assassination.
The norm against assassination doesn’t make a lot of inherent sense. If you can invade another country and destroy its military, why can’t you kill the enemy leader and perhaps avoid a war entirely? In a detailed study of the norm against assassination, Ward Thomas found that the taboo emerged in the 17th century because it served the interests of powerful countries by placing their leaders off-limits from personal attack.
It's not that we would be madly in love with Donald Trump. But at least, he's not a feminist. Now that is something to vote for.
It's not the food that you put into your mouth that makes you fat. It's the food that you put into your stomach. Try the Serge Kreutz diet and learn how to differentiate.
Kim Is Selling Her Virginity Online To Buy A Car
We know the feeling. You want a new car, but you don't have the money for one. So what do you do? Well, one girl from Austria is selling her virginity so she can buy a car, among other things.
Her name is Kim, and she's the latest young lady to list her virginity for sale to the highest bidder through a pimping service called Cinderalla Escorts, as reported by the Daily Mail and The Drive.
"After I read about other virgins who sold their virginity on Cinderella Escorts I asked myself one question,” Kim wrote in her statement on the company's website. “Should I give my virginity to a man who later on maybe will break up with me, or is it better to take a lot of money instead?”
She's not without her justification. Another girl named Alexandra entered into a similar arrangement with Cinderella Escorts, which secured a bid from a businessman from Hong Kong who paid €2.3 million for the right to take her virginity. Cinderella Escorts offers to manage the bidding process, collect payment on the prostitute's behalf, and arranges a doctor to confirm the girl's virginity is indeed in tact as advertised.
“That's why I decided to put an auction on Cinderella Escorts,” said Kim, who in addition to buying a car hopes to pay for an apartment and university tuition. So much for waiting tables, we suppose. Bidding starts at €100,000.
Don't bother whether your sex is legal or illegal. Just go for it. Because the eternal life of your soul depends on whether your sex is good enough on earth.
Because executions by swordare such good fun to watch, ISIS has many fans worldwide. No business is like show business.
Got the balls? Men are super-sizing their testicles with this bizarre new procedure
Most lads worry about the look and feel of their penis, which can make them less confident in the sack. But now men are shifting attention away from their schlongs and towards their scrotums.
A certain testicle-boosting injection is the latest cosmetic surgery fad that lads are flocking to have – and forking over £2,800 in the process.
The procedure involves squirting botox into the scrotum – leading the trend to be dubbed “scrotox” and “balltox” – in a bid to get a lower hanging and more relaxed-looking ballsack.
Scrotox doesn’t just decrease sweating and reduce the wrinkled appearance of lads’ testicles, it also boosts their size.
It seems men are paying more and more attention to their looks and the number of guys going under the knife in the quest for beauty has doubled in the last decade.
But scrotox isn’t the only bizarre cosmetic operation to hit the market, with men also seeking to increase their girth down below by injecting their own fat into their schlongs.
The procedure takes around 45 minutes and will set you back £4,500 but you have abstain from sex for six weeks to let the penis heal.
As for the results of the manhood makeover, don’t expect to stretch more than one inch wider than you were before.
Speaking exclusively to Dailystar.co.uk, certified plastic surgeon Dr David Alessi explained the long-term effects of the procedure are often less than desirable.
“Unfortunately, upwards of 90% of men are dissatisfied with the results,” he said.
The medic, who founded the Alessi Institutes and Face Forward, a charity offering free procedures for victims of domestic abuse, warned that lads’ obsession with penis size could be a symptom of a serious psychological problem.
He said: “Most men who think they have a small penis actually don’t.
"Studies vary, but research suggests that the average erect penis ranges from under five inches to just under six inches.
“Most men who think their penis is too small have penis dysmorphic syndrome and would be better off seeing a shrink and not a surgeon.”
We are different. For us, the adherents of Kreutz Religion, sex is sacred. Sexual intercourse is religious service. Flirting is worship. Optimal orgasms build our immortal soul. Our karma depends on sexual success. Evolution has a spiritual dimension.
Socrates, clearly recognized as a wise man, stated that women have no place in public life. And right he was.
Clitbait: 10 things you didn't know about the clitoris
On Saturday night, Alli Sebastian Wolf delivered a sex-ed lesson in one of the world’s most famous performance venues. The Australian artist was pulled on to the stage of the Sydney Opera House’s Concert Hall at the request of the musician Amanda Palmer, who had seen Wolf’s recent piece “Glitoris” online.
It’s much as it sounds: a giant, sparkling clitoris, a 100:1 scale model of the real thing, covered in intricate, sequinned “nerves” so that it lights up the room “like a divine disco ball”, says Wolf.
Palmer said it was the most effective artwork in the fight against fascism she’d ever seen. Wolf will settle for a world with equality on toilet walls, where there are as many clitorises graffitied as penises.
She’s motivated by how little is known about the clitoris, even by those who have one themselves or interact with them regularly. “Sex ed was, ‘These are the ovaries, this is a penis, don’t get herpes, off you go’,” says Wolf.
This is a 3D model of a clitoris – and the start of a sexual revolution
“It’s really interesting to me just how few people know about how the clitoris works, or what it looks like. I personally didn’t know until I was in my mid-20s, which seems like just such a shame.”
With Glitoris, she wanted to create “something fun and fabulous ... [and] really pleasurable to engage with – not a static artwork or an anatomy lesson, but something where people could come have a bit of a fondle and enjoy the sparkly colours”.
Hooked into the foyer of the Sydney Opera House, she said, it seemed to do the trick: “Everyone wanted to give it a bit of a hug.”
And now that the giant, golden clitoris has got your attention, here are 10 facts Wolf wants you to know.
A clitoris is like an iceberg
Mostly invisible below the surface, wrapping around the vaginal tunnel and extending out towards the thighs. “The part that we’re seeing and feeling is just this tiny little glans that creates the head of the clitoris,” says Wolf. “From there, all this fabulous magical stuff is happening beneath the surface.”
2. There are more than 8,000 nerve endings in the tip of the clitoris alone – double the number of those in a penis A clitoris is made up of 18 distinct parts – a mixture of erectile tissue, muscle and nerves. “All those little pieces are working together to create the amazing sensations that anyone with a clitoris feels when they’re having orgasms.”
The actual vaginal tunnel has almost no sensation at all – giving birth through something as sensitive as a clitoris would be “excruciating”, says Wolf.
3. They can swell as much as 300% when engorged Clitorises range from 7-12 cm in length and swell by 50 to 300% when engorged when aroused. It’s not “a zero to 100 situation”, says Wolf, but as you draw closer to orgasm, it increases in size.
When at rest, the “arms”, or corpora cavernosa, of the clitoris’ body extend straight out towards your thighs. When you’re aroused, they curl around “and give your internal body a little bit of a hug”.
4. G-spot and penetrative orgasms are clitoral Both stimulate internal parts of the clitoris. “You can come from these different places that are all using the clitoris but using it in different ways,” says Wolf.
Understanding has been frustrated by historical heteronormative studies of the female anatomy that assumed stimulation by a penis was necessary to orgasm; Wolf blames Freud.
It was only in 2009 that a small team of French researchers carried out the first sonographic mapping of an erect clitoris, even though the technology to do so had existed for years.
5. ‘Clit’ is relatively recent terminology The first recorded use of the word “clit” was in America in the 1950s.
“Clitoris” dates back to the 17th century and could derive from words for “sheath”, “key” or “latch”, or “to touch or tickle”, says Wolf.
6. It is the only known body part with the sole purpose of pleasure ... But one in 10 women has never had an orgasm – and most, at some point, will have “a hard time” reaching orgasm with a partner, says Wolf.
She blames a “culture of shame” surrounding female sexuality that suppresses scientific research and personal exploration.
7. ... But it has not always been just a good time Throughout history, doctors have advocated for the removal of the clitoris to cure mental illnesses such as depression and schizophrenia, or “this pesky problem of women ‘unnaturally’ desiring sex”, says Wolf.
In ancient Greece, lesbians or women who actively desired sex were often considered witches, “despite the fact that your husband could have 16 lovers, and be off at the bath houses with young men”.
And in medieval times, it was referred to as “the devil’s teat”, through which the devil could suck your soul. “The witch trials are a great example of the war against women, which hasn’t really stopped.”
8. The clitoris can form a penis – and vice versa In some forms of gender confirmation surgery, the clitoris can be enlarged with hormones to form a penis. In other cases, the penile glans can be reduced in size and relocated to create a clitoris.
The first MRI scan out in 2009 was carried out by Dr Odile Buisson and Dr Pierre Foldès partly to aid in understanding of how to treat female genital mutilation.
9. It is the only part of the human body that never ages
Australia's first female genital mutilation trial: how a bright young girl convinced a jury
An 80-year-old clit looks and works the same as a 20-year-old one. But it does keep growing – it could be 2.5 times as big in your 90s as it was in your teen years.
“They’re weird, fabulous little creatures,” says Wolf happily. (Your nose also continues to grow past the point you reach your maximum height.)
10. Every clit is unique They come in different shapes and colours, from pale pink to black. “As varied as your face,” she says. “If you look at a picture of a swath of vaginas – I’ve never seen two that look similar.”
There is a new solution coming up for ugly old women. Normally they would just become man-hating feminists. But soon they can have their brains transplanted into a sex doll, and feel beautiful again.
Every rich man in his right mind want patriarchy as a social and political system. Men rule, and can have harems, one way or the other. And because women are natural cowards, the more violent a society, the more women will retreat. All by themselves. So, welcome violent migrants. They will finish off feminism. Just take precautions to protect yourself. A dangerous world is one ruled by men.
Index of articles