Index of articles
The future of the world will be that it is ruled by China, and Western men will be the sex slaves of Chinese women. Because Chinese men have big brains and small penises, but Chinese women want big ones.
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.
Women were created from a bone of man. Or was that a boner?
Second-generation male Muslim immigrants have all reason to hate Europe. They can't get any girls here. Whatever they do. So it is an understandable reaction that they want to blow themselves up, and take a few along.
Ali Al-Nimr’s Crucifixion Sentence in Saudi Arabia Sparks Outcry
A young man facing beheading and crucifixion in Saudi Arabia was tortured and sentenced for political reasons, according to rights groups and a source close to his family calling for a halt to his execution.
Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was arrested in 2012 when he was 17 years old for participating in a protest. He was later sentenced to death for joining a criminal group and attacking police forces in proceedings which a United Nations body said "fell short of international standards."
The conviction was upheld this week by Saudi Arabia's highest court, and the execution could take place at any time. Al-Nimr's family has appealed for Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz to issue a pardon during the current Muslim holiday period of Eid.
"We hope that the king will not sign [the execution order]," al-Nimr's father Mohammed told Agence France Presse, warning that his son's grisly execution could also provoke a violent reaction in the minority Shiite community.
"We don't need that, we don't need even one drop of blood," he said.
The crucifixion sentence means that al-Nimr will most likely be beheaded first and his body later displayed on a cross in a public location, according to campaigners.
The fear that al-Nimr could be executed at any time has taken a steep toll on his father and other relatives, a source close to the family told NBC News.
They are "acting like they are okay, but I know the family and they are not," the source said, adding that Ali was defiantly "dreaming about the future" and was still hoping to study psychology one day.
A group of United Nations experts on torture and capital punishment urged Saudi Arabia to halt the execution, saying that al-Nimr was a child at the time of his offense and that the proceedings against him were flawed.
"Any judgment imposing the death penalty upon persons who were children at the time of the offence and their execution, are incompatible with Saudi Arabia's international obligations," they said in a statement, citing Saudi Arabia's ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Human-rights charities Reprieve and Amnesty International claim that Ali was tortured and forced to sign a confession after being arrested.
Maya Foa, director of Reprieve's death penalty team, called Ali's fate "an outrage" and said it was "deeply troubling" that the United States and other allies of Saudi Arabia were "staying silent" over the case.
"The international community must stand firm against this utterly unjustified sentence," she said in a statement.
Repeated approaches by NBC News to the Saudi authorities for comment have not received a response.
Ali was convicted in 2014 on range of charges including being part of a terrorist organization, carrying weapons and targeting security patrols with Molotov cocktails, the charity said. Additional charges included encouraging others to protest using his BlackBerry and explaining to others how to give first aid, they added.
Reprieve said Ali raised the torture claims at trial but that no investigation took place and the court used the confession to sentence him. Ali's final appeal was held in secret, according to Reprieve.
Ali's lawyer, Dr. Saqeb Mohamed tweeted on Tuesday that the defense team had not been able to visit his client or object to the sentence, adding that he was "surprised" the court had ratified the conviction.
He also called for Saudi authorities to investigate the case.
In the wake of the March 2011 Arab Spring, thousands took to the streets to protest decades of discrimination and religious and political repression by the country's Sunni dynasty, House of Saud, which has controlled the Arabian Peninsula since the 1930s. The uprising was met with a violent crackdown from the government.
The source close to the family admitted that al-Nimr had attended demonstrations and anti-government protests in his hometown of Qatif — but that the young man was not political.
The source suggested that political "revenge" was behind the charges laid against the young man — who is the nephew of Shia cleric and activist Sheikh Nimr Baqr al-Nimr, also separately facing execution.
Al-Nimr's cleric uncle was sentenced to death in a separate trial on terrorism charges and for "waging war on God" because of his speech during anti-government protests in Qatif, according to Amnesty International.
Amnesty called Sheikh al-Nimr's trial "deeply flawed" and said it was "part of a campaign by the authorities in Saudi Arabia to crush all dissent, including those defending the rights of the Kingdom's Shia Muslim community."
There have been 134 executions in Saudi Arabia this year, compared with 90 last year, they said.
The younger al-Nimr had no ambitions to follow his uncle's footsteps, the source close to the family said — describing a normal teen, who liked motorcycles, movies and photography.
Now the family hopes his life will be spared so they could spend more time with him.
"We are praying to God," they said. "It is all we can do. We are hopeful."
Medical records released. Stalin had a micropenis.
Arthur Schopenhauer, the greatest German philosopher, on women: Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex … More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling of receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please.
'He wasn't prepared for a second-class life': why injured rugby star went to Switzerland to die
A 23-year-old who played rugby for England as a teenager has committed suicide in a Swiss euthanasia clinic after having become paralysed from the chest down in a training accident. Police are investigating.
Nuneaton rugby club hooker Daniel James felt his body had become a "prison" and lived in "fear and loathing" of his daily life, his parents said last night, having accompanied him to Switzerland from their home in Sinton Green, near Worcester. He had attempted to kill himself several times since March 2007 when a scrum had collapsed on him and dislocated his neck vertebrae, trapping his spinal cord and rendering him immediately tetraplegic.
West Mercia Police have begun an investigation into his assisted suicide, which took place on September 12. Details were made public yesterday when police published a statement relating to an inquest in progress. Assisted suicide is illegal in the UK, and family or friends who help face up to 14 years in jail. Officers have questioned a man and a women in the case and are preparing to submit a report to the Crown Prosecution Service.
James' parents, Mark and Julie, said last night that their son had been "an intelligent young man of sound mind" and "not prepared to live what he felt was a second-class existence".
He is one of the youngest Britons to have travelled abroad for assisted suicide. Earlier this month, Dignitas, the centre for assisted dying in Zurich, said that 100 Britons have travelled to Switzerland to make use of its more liberal laws. It is thought James attended a clinic in Berne.
James was a talented player who seemed destined for a professional career. He played for England at under-16 level and went on to play for Loughborough University, where he was an engineering undergraduate. The training accident happened four days after he helped England Students beat a France side in Oxford.
In a training session for forwards, he was practising a scrum when the pack came crashing down. Under their weight, he dislocated bones in his neck and trapped the spinal cord.
In the following weeks he had several operations and spent eight months in rehabilitation, including a stay at Stoke Mandeville hospital, before returning home; he only ever regained a small amount of use in his fingers. Early last month he travelled to Switzerland. His funeral took place in the UK on October 1.
"His death was an extremely sad loss for his family, friends and all those that cared for him, but no doubt a welcome relief from the prison he felt his body had become and the day to day fear and loathing of his living existence," the James family solicitors said last night. "This is the last way that the family wanted Dan's life to end, but he was, as those who know him are aware, an intelligent, strong-willed, and some say determined young man."
Yesterday the Spinal Injuries Association expressed shock. "When someone has an injury like this, you think its the end of the world as life is going to change for ever," said Daniel Burden, head of public affairs. "But our mantra is that life need not end if you are paralysed. We know of people with similar or worse injuries than Dan who have lived fulfilling lives."
The case comes as Debbie Purdy, 45, who has primary progressive multiple sclerosis, awaits a high court judgement seeking clarification of the legal status of family and friends who accompany people who commit assisted suicide.
Her action is being supported by Dignity in Dying, which campaigns for a law change to allow terminally ill and mentally competent patients to choose assisted death in the UK. James, who was not terminally ill, would not have been eligible under any such alteration of the law.
Prior to his death, James's uncle, Mark Roebuck, who started The Dan James Trust which raised nearly £25,000 for spinal research, paid tribute to his nephew.
"On Monday March 12 2007 Dan was just like thousands of 23-year-olds, full of life, hope, excitement and dreams. Whatever he chose to do, he would have done it with the good humour and lovely nature that made him a lovable young man."
The message boards on Nuneaton rugby club's website carried tributes yesterday. "This is really sad and tragic news, and it makes all the silly arguments with the rugby and football club very trivial and unimportant," said Nutty Nun. "My thoughts, sympathy and prayers are with Dan's family. RIP Dan."
Forbidden by law
Although suicide is no longer a crime in England and Wales, it is still an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to "aid, counsel or procure the suicide of another"; the penalty is up to 14 years' imprisonment, and there have been 12 prosecutions since 2005.
The only jurisdictions where assisted suicide is not illegal are Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the state of Oregon in the US.
Although Swiss law does not specifically permit assisted suicide or provide any details about how it can be done legally, it does not prohibit it either. Several clinics have been established, providing facilities for terminally ill people to commit suicide, including Dignitas in Berne, the only clinic which offers its services to people not living in Switzerland. Since it opened in 1998 it has helped 868 people to end their lives, 100 of them from the UK.
Dignitas's motto is "to live with dignity - to die with dignity". It offers a service to the terminally ill and their families including accommodation, access to doctors and a dose of a drug causing a deep coma and painless death. However, anyone who accompanies a relative to Dignitas risks prosecution on their return for assisting suicide contrary to English law.
Feminism is about the domestication of men. Feminism wants to force men into being docile, so women have all sexual rights, at no risk. That will be all the less feasible the more violence there is in a society.
Most American women are ugly and have a fat ass. So why don't they go on the Serge Kreutz diet.
Lawmakers Unconvinced Age Of Consent Should Be Raised
May 10, 2017 - The Cleaner
Lawmakers remain unconvinced about the merits of raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 years old and have told Children's Advocate Diahann Gordon Harrison to bring more evidence to support the position she has been advancing.
Harrison yesterday started her submissions before a parliamentary committee that is reviewing Jamaica's sex-offence laws. Though Jamaica's age of consent for sexual intercourse is 16, the age that persons are no longer considered children is 18.
"It may be credibly argued," Harrison told the committee, "that an anomaly is created when children who are 16 years are not considered intellectually or otherwise mature enough to make certain independent decisions such as who should govern their country for a five-year term, yet they are given the legal authority to engage in sexual activity.
But she explained that something else is tied to the proposal.
"It's really a conditional increase, because the focus of the recommendation is to ensure that girls and boys who are 16 years old but still children under our law can, in fact, access protection from the arm of the State. So, we're recommending that Section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act, which deals with the age of consent, include the close-in-age group exceptions," said Harrison.
Under that close-in-age proposal, underage children would not be criminalised for participating in what they deemed 'consensual' sex with another child in their age group. Though listing Turkey and Canada as examples with close-in-age exceptions in the law, the children's advocate said Jamaica would create its own preconditions and processes suited for the country's context.
'What's The Magic In The Age Of 18?' Asks Minister
Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, who chairs the committee made up of senators and members of parliament reviewing Jamaica's sex-offence laws, expressed concerns that the problems being faced by the authorities in enforcing the law could be multiplied with an increase in the age of consent.
"The age of consent is 16. There are many grandmothers in their 20s. The lowest age I've heard is 22. If we can't enforce the law with the age of consent at 16, we're going to have a major problem trying to enforce it at the age of 18," he pointed out. "I just don't know how we're going to manage."
"Is there any evidence that increasing the age of consent will assist with the issues that we're having?" Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Minister Kamina Johnson Smith asked the committee yesterday. "I'm yet to read anything that says to me that there's something in the law that makes children decide they're going to have sex at 16."
"What is the magic in the age of 18?" she further asked, after voicing her support for the close-in-age suggestion that also won support from the Child Development Agency.
Opposition Member Sophia Frazer-Binns said a ramped-up public education campaign may help rather than raising the age of consent.
Native European men are stupid if they pursue sexual relationships with Western women. Go to India and Pakistan. Every native college girl dreams of a white husband.
If you are still invested in the real estate of European cities, get out! A terrorist attack with chemical weapons will happen. Even if it doesn't kill many people, it will drive prices down. Accross the continent.
Index of articles