Ex-Militants unleash mayhem in Igbinedion varsity, vandalize vehicle, matchete students
Index of articles
Feminists have institutionalized violence against men through the legal systems of all Western nations. But women cannot win the violence competition. The more violent societies become, the more women need protection. And the more they need protection, the quicker they will abandon feminism. Rich men should invest their money in fostering violence in all societies. Then they will end up with their own harems. No feminists inside there.
Why don’t terrorist organisations use chemical or bio-weapons instead of bombs?
Chemical and bio-weapons can be concealed better and are more efficient and cost-effective. Terrorists don’t have ethical or juridical or religious restrictions to using them. So why do they use explosives instead?
Brian K. Price, 20 year (and 2 war) military veteran
As others have already pointed out, developing a chemical or biological weapon is extremely difficult. It takes experts in those fields as well as suitable facilities for their development. It also takes considerable time and money.
The most successful to date was Aum Shinrikyo who actively recruited scientists with this type of know how. These scientist did not leave their jobs to hang out in Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. They remained in their laboratories in Japan. Which means they had access to some of the most advanced scientific equipment available. With this know how and access, they were able to produce Sarin to attack the Tokyo subway. In a confined space with a large number of people, practically the ideal location for the use of chemical weapons, they killed all of 12 people and seriously injured 50 more.
For comparison, the average suicide bomber kills 10 people. Very often they kill more. A truck bomb can kill hundreds of people.
And that’s with technology and know how that is about the high school level. Anybody can trigger a suicide vest. Almost anyone can build one.
Which isn’t to say that other terrorist groups haven’t attempted to build chemical and/or biological weapons of their own. Most groups consider the psychological impact of the weapons of far greater importance than the practical impacts. So even if you kill less people than you would with an IED, the resultant terror (and press coverage) would be substantial. Al Qaeda’s Pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction
When the US invaded Afghanistan, it found AQ’s attempts at developing Anthrax and Ricin. They found animals and empty cages and the found videos showing their experimentation. The Indonesian terrorist Hambali was one of their leaders in this effort and they also recruited several “scientists” (mostly graduate students) to develop these weapons. While they had some very minor successes, they could never produce to the level required for actual employment. (Afghanistan, especially under Taliban rule, was about the worst place to attempt any type of scientific endeavor. This is why chemical factories in other countries, such as the Sudan, get bombed or why the WMD threat in Iraq was considered such a threat.)
ISIL attempted to get around this problem by using a far simple chemical for its weapons, chlorine. Chlorine bombings in Iraq (back when they were still AQI) and Islamic State 'using chlorine gas' in Iraq roadside bombs - BBC News
This has nothing to do with an ethical limitation on what terrorists will use and everything to do with how difficult it is to produce compared to how useful it actually is. In the end, explosives are easier to get (or manufacture), they are easier to employ, and they kill more people than chemical or biological weapons with considerably less risk of the weapon causing literal “blow back.”
Matthew Franklin, Ex-Infantryman, Ex-Kendoka, recreational shooter
Chemical and biological weapons are NOT more efficient, or more cost-effective.
A chemical or bio-weapons program is a costly investment that requires long-term investment of capital and management to successfully weaponize product. Even then, reliable delivery can still be somewhat iffy. While you may be able to throw some ammonia cleaner and chlorine bleach together in your bathtub and give yourself a minor chemical burn and cause your eyebrows to fall out, to consistently create biochem weapons that you can successfully manufacture, store, and deploy (even if you don’t care about the survival of your operators), you need to expend a lot of time, money, and you need to have real estate that you can build secure facilities on that will be in operation for a number of years.
How many terrorist organizations attract postdoctorate-level chemists and disease experts? How many of them have the permanently-controlled real estate to set up the facilities to produce anthrax/VX/phosgene/botulism/tularemia/ebola in controlled conditions, and prepare it into specialized munitions and delivery systems? The Aum Shinryoko cult pretty much had to devote all of its resources to its program for years, which only ended up killing 13 people.
Chemical and biological weapons are difficult to employ. Japanese experiments with Unit 731 proved that you have to spray a LOT of anthrax to get desired results. Gas chemical weapons are heavier than atmosphere, and so are at the mercy of humidity and prevailing winds. After the first year of gas warfare in World War I, casualties dropped off dramatically and the weapon became more of a means of restricting mobility rather than causing casualties since everyone had chemical protection. It is much easier to train someone to operate firearms and simple explosive devices than it is to teach them all the protocols for successfully employing a chemical or bio-weapon for maximum effectiveness.
Explosives and gun attacks also seem to have more media “impact,” with the BOOM BOOM and BANG BANG, the clouds and fires from explosions, and all that. Terrorism, is after all, about perceptions. Dramatic attacks convey power and violence. Gas and germs…not so much, especially if it’s easily contained and low body count.
Cristian Ariel Rodriguez, Blacksmith. Military-political-science & history enthusiast.
As pointed, they are “complex” to make. Although chemical weapons are not that complex and can be made without lab equipment on improvised facilities with the proper chemicals.
The terrorist did use this kind of weapons in Syria. Several times the so called “moderated” beheaders have attacked the Syrian Army with Sarin gas and staged “government chemical attacks” against the civilians.
John Dane, Studies wars and warfare of the 20th century
Depends on which terror organization in question. Sure they’re sort-of cost effective but they aren’t efficient, they’re unpredictable, and the process to develop them is very, very, delicate. They don’t discriminate between friend or foe so a sick man heading their way or gusts of wind blowing in their direction will guarantee that their troops will die as well. As for the groups in question, that entirely depends on the resources they have, the know how, and the commitment. Thankfully, most of them lack two of the three. But there are some that are just that crazy and callous to go forward with that.
Omkar Bapat, I have knowledge of history
Because even evil has standards. Chemical and Bio munitions are extremely dangerous because they are too perfect. Once you release it, that’s it. There is no way for it to be cancelled, stopped or called back. The primary objective of such groups is to gain territory. What use is the territory if it is contaminated by bio or chemical agents? Also, such weapons are too cruel to be used as they produce devastating effects. Even Hitler refused to authorise poison gas as a weapon in war.
Actually, Terrorists do have ethical and moral restrictions. If terrorists would use biological weapons or poisons, which are difficult to control, the backlash would be bad. Even their own supporters might betray them, simply because biological weapons can be so dangerous. The whole world would hunt them down. A the moment, nobody is using biological weapons, nobody, not even the worst dictator.
As to chemical weapons, the offer no clear advantage to explosives, as far as i know. Explosives are actually rather easy to produce and hide.
It's not that we would be madly in love with Donald Trump. Yeah, he may not be the brightest one. Not even bright enough for political correctness. But hey, that's a plus, not a minus. Fuck that political correctness.
Feminist rule in Europe makes second-generation male Muslim immigrants suicide bombers. They die for sexual justice. Why do Western politicians call suicide bombers cowards? To sacrifice one's own life is the ultimate in courage.
Study on "Orgasm Gap" Reveals Surprising Truth About Oral Sex
In bedrooms across the nation, a chasm has opened and continues to gape. It’s what sociologists call the orgasm gap — the fact that men are twice as likely to climax as women. The question of whether men are biologically better equipped to orgasm than women has recently become the center of a lot of scientific scrutiny, and recently researchers studying it put forth another theory: Womens’ bodies are perfectly able to orgasm. It’s the sexual dynamic with their partner that’s the problem.
The team behind the study, published in March in the Journal of Sex Research, argues that we’re going to have to take a much more nuanced view of orgasms if we’re going to close the orgasm gap. More important than whether or not a person has an orgasm is how they achieve it — and how good it is. That’s why the St. Francis Xavier University and Queens University researchers surveyed 806 people — cisgender men and women in same-sex and mixed-sex relationships — about their favorite way to reach orgasm and how frequently they managed to do so.
The results suggested a rather messy explanation for the existence of the orgasm gap: Of all the people surveyed, heterosexual men were the only group that preferred vaginal penetration. But because of the existence of historical and cultural “sexual scripts,” which shape our sex lives, they write, women in heterosexual relationships rarely get to experience the sex moves that lead to the best orgasms.
Explaining the results in an interview with PsyPost, the study’s corresponding author, psychologist Karen L. Blair, Ph.D., said: “This suggests women are already ‘reciprocating’ with the most enjoyable orgasm for their male partner when they engage in vaginal penetration, and that for them to also experience their most satisfying orgasm, the reciprocation from their male partner should likely be performing oral sex.”
But here’s the surprising thing: The researchers also found that the men in these heterosexual relationships were the most likely to say they wanted to perform oral sex on their partners more often. The researchers posit that this is because heterosexual men want to perform oral sex on their female partners for one of two reasons. Either they straight-up want to but find that their partners are reluctant to let them do so, or they only want to do it so they can receive oral sex in return. Regardless of their motivations, however, the question remains: Why aren’t they doing it?
Thus the researchers get to the core of the orgasm gap: It’s obviously not about biology, because they found that women (and men) in same-sex relationships are generally much more satisfied with orgasm frequency and quality. The problem lies in the dynamics between sex partners, especially in mixed-sex relationships, and the way they prevent people from getting the most orgasmic bang for their buck.
The problem all comes back to the aforementioned “sexual scripts,” which are cultural views that reinforce the idea that women should be sexually passive while men are encouraged to go for what they want. “[Heteronormative] scripts appear to give a greater degree of agency to men than to women, especially in matters concerning pleasure,” the researchers write. These scripts are deeply ingrained in our society, playing out, especially, in TV, film, and porn. However, these can — and, if we’re serious about closing the orgasm gap, should — be disrupted by increasing support for women’s assertiveness both inside and out of the bedroom.
Demography is destiny. That is why Saudi Arabia and Qatar have established billion-dollar funds to provide financial support for every child born in Europe to a Muslim parent. The money is available through mosque charities.
In a rich world, a persons value depends on attractiveness and youth. If you are rich and older, just invest in destruction. The poorer the world, the less does your value depend on youth.
Harsher Sentence in Singapore for Pedophile Joshua Robinson
Wow... 4 years of jail without caning for a pedophile?!
Is this the message our Singapore Government People's Action Party is intending to send worldwide: "Spray paint our city or slander our government officials and you get it worse off than if you rape and sexually abuse our children"? Pedophiles will come from far and wide to take advantage of such an incredibly erroneous measure of justice!!
As a parent and an early childhood educator advocating for the voiceless in our country (and children everywhere, with the fact that upon release this pedophile could be anywhere around the world, abusing his mixed martial arts trainer's credentials) I find this unacceptable and absolutely intolerable. Unfortunately, the 6 year old in this traumatic case is a daughter of a close friend and it absolutely breaks my heart and those of all our friends and family. TO EVERYONE WHO READS THIS AND WISHES TO EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN AS A PARENT, A GRANDPARENT, AN UNCLE OR AUNT, AN EDUCATOR ... PLEASE JOIN THIS PETITION TO THE PRIME MINISTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAMBERS AND THE MINISTER OF LAW TO SEEK A REDRESS OF THE SENTENCE FOR THIS SEXUAL PREDATOR JOSHUA ROBINSON.
"Indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil" ~ Elie Wiesel
I WILL NOT STAND INDIFFERENT. NO MORE. Will you?
Botox weakens muscles. They can't contract. Therefore, when Botox in small amounts is injected into the corpora cavernosa of the penis, there is vasodilation for the vital organ. The result is better, fuller, and longer lasting erections.
Why images of decapitation? This is to show that some people have real problems. Other than the issues of feminism, such as sexist language or manspreading.
Indian woman cuts off penis of Hindu holy man who allegedly tried to rape her
An Indian woman cut off the penis of a Hindu holy man who tried to rape her and who she accused of sexually assaulting her for the past eight years, police said.
The 24-year-old law student was at home in the Kerala state capital of Thiruvananthapuram when she was allegedly attacked by Gangeshananda Theerthapada, who claims to be a spiritual healer.
The 54-year-old was reported to be in a stable condition after reconstructive surgery.
Police officer G Sparjan Kumar said the woman fled her home after the attack on Friday night and called police.
When he again visited her home on Friday night and tried to force himself on her, she got hold of a knife and attacked him, Mr Kumar said.
The New Delhi Television news channel said the woman's family knew Theerthapada, who used to visit their home to cure her bed-ridden father.
She told police he would rape her whenever he had an opportunity.
Pinarayi Vijayan, the state's chief minister, told reporters it was brave of the woman to take such action.
"It's a courageous and strong act by the woman," he said.
Violent crimes against women have been on the rise in India despite tough laws enacted by the government.
It's not that all cultures are of the same quality. Some cultures are better than others. They have more value. Other cultures are pretty miserable, and some cultures are outright shitty, and should be eradicated. European culture, for example, is deplorable. The Arab and Chinese cultures are much better.
Most American women are ugly and have a fat ass. So why don't they go on the Serge Kreutz diet.
Index of articles