Suspected Cultists Behead Two Abia State University Students
Index of articles
Terrorist group already has foreign fighters on its payroll who can manufacture lethal weapons from raw materials, as well as access to toxic agents left behind by the tyrants of Syria, Iraq and Libya.
Could Islamic State carry out chemical or biological terrorism in Europe? Yes, and it might, warns a briefing to the European Parliament published this week, saying that the radical Islamic group has money; scientists – some of foreign origin – on the payroll; found an abundance of deadly toxins stockpiled by the tyrants of Syria, Iraq and Libya; and could make more of its own quite easily.
"European citizens are not seriously contemplating the possibility that extremist groups might use chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear materials during attacks in Europe," writes analyst Beatriz Immenkamp in the briefing. They should.
It wouldn't be a big leap. ISIS has used mustard and chlorine gases in Iraq and Syria. And a laptop belonging to a Tunisian physicist who joined ISIS was found to contain a paper on weaponizing bubonic plague bacteria obtained from animals. The intent is there: the governments of Belgium and France are already working on contingency plans.
Moreover, it would be fairly simple for ISIS sympathizers to obtain the materials for chemical and biological attacks in Europe itself, the report says. The continent is brimming with them and security is inadequate.
Israeli experts add that the group could make deadly chemicals of its own, and could be already developing the capacity to weaponize them.
At least some chemical weapons, whether gaseous, liquid or solid, are fairly trivial to make. To attack the Kurds, for example, says the EU report, it appears that ISIS simply repurposed fertilizer.
Making – or obtaining – the chemical is the first stage. The second is weaponizing it. Can ISIS make its own chemical weapons?
ISIS may have manufactured crude shells containing toxic chemicals, the EU report says. "[Weaponization] can be done crudely by putting the substance into shells and firing those shells," says Dany Shoham, a specialist in unconventional weapons from the Begin Sadat Center of Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University.
Indeed, ISIS' use of chemical weapons has been crude so far, but the group could become more sophisticated in their weaponization in the future, he suggests.
Alternatively, ISIS could capture already weaponized chemicals. It is probable that ISIS has deployed both weapons it made itself and weapons it captured, says Shoham.
As for resources: In June 2014, ISIS seized control of Muthanna, Iraq, once the Saddam Hussein regime's primary chemical-weapons production facility. American troops were supposed to have destroyed weapons there after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but officials admitted when ISIS conquered the city that a stockpile of weapons still existed. They claimed the remaining chemical weapons had no military value. The following month, ISIS launched its first chemical attack on the Kurds in Kobani, Syria, using mustard gas, an agent that is known to have been made at Muthanna.
ISIS may also have access to weapons containing sarin nerve gas that remained in Syria, the EU report notes, as well as mustard agents and nerve agent rockets from Iraq, and chemical materials leftover from Libya programs.
It is unclear how effective these agents would be after years of storage, qualifies Ely Karmon, a specialist in terrorism and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. But they might still be usable.
In addition, ISIS has a lot of scientific talent on board, including some inherited from the Hussein regime, says Karmon. For instance, until his death in a coalition strike in January, ISIS had Hussein's chemical warfare expert Salih Jasim Muhammed Falah al-Sabawi, aka Abu Malik, on the payroll. The United States said Abu Malik provided ISIS with "expertise to pursue a chemical weapons capability."
Possessing chemical weapons does not necessarily mean the group can use them beyond the borders of Syria and Iraq. "Transferring chemical weapons to Europe would be difficult," says Karmon. Weaponizing chemicals within the borders of Europe would also be difficult, adds Shoham, given the likelihood of being detected by security agencies.
However, Shoham and Karmon agree that ISIS could use toxic chemicals in Europe, relatively easily, in an unweaponized form – the impact of such an attack could be devastating, notes Shoham.
Alternatively, ISIS could attack a chemical facility with conventional weapons, similar to Yassin Salhi's failed attempt to strike the Air Products chemical factory near Lyon, France, notes Karmon.
Biological weapons – germs – are a different story. The science of bio-weaponry has come far since the millennia of yore, when besiegers might toss a disease-riddled corpse over the town walls to terrify and infect the people inside. Today's nightmare scenarios include, for example, weaponized ebola virus that can infect through the air, rather than requiring physical proximity to infected mucous membranes, or anthrax engineered to be even deadlier than the original bacterium.
How easy is it for ISIS to procure or make biological weapons? And if they had them, would they be likely they use them?
Obtaining the bugs at the base of biological weapons wouldn't be a big problem, surmises Shoham. Suitable pathogens are readily available at academic laboratories, vaccine factories and pharmaceutical companies, all of which are civilian facilities. Even if few such institutions still exist in the ISIS territories, the group might try to get bacteria from sympathizers in Europe or the United States, Shoham says.
But for all that telltale laptop of the Tunisian physicist, ISIS would have difficulty weaponizing them, Shoham thinks – yet adds that biological terrorism can also be carried out without weaponization. For example, by releasing a pathogen into a water system.
So ISIS could get the bugs and might be able to weaponize them, or could use them as is. But would the group resort to bio-war?
Working with biological agents is very risky for the handler, Shoham says, but adds: "I don't think this factor would constitute a bottleneck for a radical organization like ISIS."
The obstacle most likely to deter ISIS from deploying biological weapons isn't the risk of some lab technician falling ill. It's their inability to control its spread, says Karmon.
Unlike chemical and radiological weapons, one cannot target a defined set of victims with biological agents because they are contagious, he explains. Anybody using a bio-weapon runs the risk of infecting their own population. That in itself is a powerful deterrent.
Europe, given the ability of bacteria to travel on planes, is anybody's guess.
Impact: The cost of war
Chemical and biological terrorism would probably cause significantly more damage than conventional terrorism, Shoham and Karmon agree.
Even in a best-case scenario, for instance that an infectious agent is detected in the water system before anyone drinks or bathes in it, just cleaning the contaminant from the water system would be very difficult, Shoham says. The EU report notes that in anticipation of this very sort of thing, Paris has stepped up security at its water facilities.
What can the West do to frustrate this threat?
It could try to limit ISIS' access to certain civilian and military installations in Syria and Iraq, says Shoham. Yet, doing this without ground forces may prove difficult.
Might the threat of a massive counter-attack by the West serve as a significant deterrent? Probably not, says Shoham.
Europe can screen travelers entering the continent, says Shoham, although this is unlikely to serve as a rigorous enough preventative measure. The EU report itself suggests monitoring returning fighters and radicals in the European Union, especially any known to have "CBRN knowledge."
Aside from that, the report suggests that European nations improve preparedness, for instance by equipping rescue forces with antidotes. Europe can also increase security at key installations, which Paris for one is already doing. And, in addition, European countries can start preparing, and drilling, their populations.
During the first Gulf War, the Israeli government began handing out gas masks to the general population. They aren't effective against all forms of chemical attack, let alone biological. A full-body suit is better. But gas masks, used properly, are a good start.
Female genital mutilation is no preventive treatment against some women, especially in India just becoming bitches who can think of nothing then getting fucked all day. They tried it in Somalia for centuries, and it failed. Somali girls are the wildest fuckers in the world.
As a follow up to my last article about the possibility of immortality through computers, I thought it would be good to discuss all the incredible feedback and expand on the possibility of immortality/life preservation even further.
Incase you missed it, I discussed the possibility of immortality by uploading ones mind onto a computer/robotic system. After posting that and receiving the mass of feedback both supporting and critiquing the concept, I began to think even more about the possibility of preserving ones mind beyond the lifespan of it’s bodily limits.
Certainly moving ones mind to a computer may seem possible, but many brought up the great point that I touched on at the end of my previous article. Even though a computer may have your memories and function as you do, the transfer of your ‘consciousness’ might not actually survive. Simply leaving a copy of you that has not preserved your true self. The reasoning behind this is that a brains function is not only reliant on a type of copiable coded information, but also on a very intricate chemical/physical structure that only the human brain has. We can’t be sure if a consciousness requires this physical and chemical make-up to exist, but assuming it does, uploading onto a computer does not seem like a true way of achieving “immortality”. It’s simply passing along your likeness to a machine.
So continuing with the assumption that our brains are so unique that a consciousness can’t exist without them. How do we live forever? Many would just stop there and say we can’t, but anything is possible within the laws of the universe (which we aren’t even close to fully understanding). So let’s figure out a way to preserve our minds without a computer…If your consciousness relies on a body to exist, what do we need? Notice how I said ‘a’ body. Not ‘your’ body. Theoretically, the mind only requires a means to exist, i.e. a brain and something to keep that brain alive (pumping blood and oxygen to it). The actual existing of a consciousness all comes down to the processing, analyzing and storing of information/data. So this means that we don’t need OUR specific body/brain to exist. Granted our bodies are made according to our DNA which does have a big impact on who we are; our actual consciousness is relatively separate. The French philosopher René Descartes, famous for his quote “Cogito ergo sum. (I think, therefore I am)” had the opinion that our thoughts, personalities and minds are mostly divorced from our bodies.
Descartes and other dualist philosophers propose that while the mind exerts control over our physical interaction with the world, there is a clear delineation between body and mind; that our material forms are simply temporary housing for our immaterial souls. – Scientific American
With that said, a recent study has shown that our minds actually are connected to our bodies. Suggesting that our state of mind can actually change the build up of our DNA based on how we use it.
he body and mind appear inextricably linked. And findings from a new study published in Cancer by a Canadian group suggest that our mental state has measurable physical influence on us – more specifically on our DNA. – Scientific American
The study shows that in breast cancer patients, practicing mindfulness meditation and attending support groups actually preserves the length of our DNA’s telomeres. While there are no specific diseases caused by shortened telomeres, people with cancer and similar diseases tend to have shorter more withered ones.
While mind/consciousness may have an affect on your DNA, this doesn’t mean we need our specific body to survive. This just means that our mind has an impact on the body it is utilizing. So where does this leave us when it comes to preserving our consciousness?
Well…it leaves us with a few options. We either need a fresh body/brain to transfer our current consciousness to, a fresh brain that can exist without a body, or we need to be able to keep our existing brain from deteriorating. Perhaps putting it into a machine that can keep it living and functioning.
Let’s start with the first option, a fresh body/brain. With all the recent advancements in the growing and 3d printing of body parts and organs, it is inevitable that we will eventually be able to successfully generate a perfectly engineered human body. It’s just going to happen. We can currently grow limbs and multiple different functioning organs using a receiving patients own cells. This means that there is no chance of rejection. It’s only a matter of time that we will be able to print a fully functioning human body and brain.
We can take cells from you, create the structure, put it right back into you, they will not reject. And if possible, we’d rather use the cells from your very specific organ. If you present with a diseased wind pipe we’d like to take cells from your windpipe. If you present with a diseased pancreas we’d like to take cells from that organ. – Anthony Atala
We obviously don’t know when this technology will advance to the bio engineering of full human bodies, but there is no doubt in my mind that it will be possible. So what happens when we can grow a complete, functioning human body and brain? Well, we need a consciousness to insert into it. Theoretically, inserting ones mind into a new brain would work. Bringing the person being transferred to life in the new body. The only factor we don’t understand at this point is the physical transferring of the consciousness. But it’s not hard at all to imagine there being a way to move the electrical signals that make up your consciousness/ mind to a new brain that has been constructed using your cells. But it’s currently not understood how. This is where companies like Humai come in. Leading me smoothly into the second option of having a machine that can contain a human mind and keep it alive and functioning.
We’re using artificial intelligence and nanotechnology to store data of conversational styles, behavioral patterns, thought processes and information about how your body functions from the inside-out. This data will be coded into multiple sensor technologies, which will be built into an artificial body with the brain of a deceased human. – Josh Bocanegra, Founder of Humai
Obviously facing significant challenges, i.e. resurrecting a deceased brain and wiring it up as to control a silicon-based machine; Josh Bocanegra and Humai aim to make all this a reality. Popsci was able to interview him and discuss some of the challenges facing the process.
Our mission is fairly simple to understand but obviously difficult to execute. We’ll first collect extensive data on our members for years prior to their death via various apps we’re developing. After death we’ll freeze the brain using cryonics technology. When the technology is fully developed we’ll implant the brain into an artificial body. The artificial body functions will be controlled with your thoughts by measuring brain waves. – Josh Bocanegra
While this may sound like what I discussed in my last article, it’s actually quite different and nixes out the problem of only creating a copy of your likeness. Josh Bocanegra wants to develop a silicon based robotic body, and then insert/connect the actual human brain to it.
This would not require any movement of ones consciousness, just a system that can keep it alive and functioning. Pretty much like the heads in Futurama. Then the only problematic factor is combating brain age/decay (my third point), which Josh claims will be possible using nano and cloning technology to repair cells.
As the brain ages we’ll use nanotechnology to repair and improve cells. Cloning technology is going to help with this too. – Josh Bocanegra
Does this sound like a viable option for sustained life if not “immortality”? With no actual transferring/copying of the brains consciousness, there is no possibility of the resurrected brain being a copy. It will HAVE to be that person, assuming the brain wakes up.
We believe we can resurrect the first human within 30 years. – Josh Bocanegra
First tests will have to be done on a recently dead person, as we still do not know if freezing a mind for a long period of time will actually preserve ones self without memory and function loss. If we were to transplant a brain from a recently deceased person into a machine possessing all necessary elements to keep the brain alive, why wouldn’t it work? If it’s transferred within the 6-10 minute window before the brain begins to die, there is no evidence to show that it wouldn’t work. Long term freezing doesn’t seem far fetched either, with certain surgical procedures keeping people in a clinically dead state for over 30 minutes with no negative effects.
During certain surgical procedures, patients are routinely held in a clinically dead state at temperatures between +12°C and +18°C for 30 minutes or more with no brain electrical activity and later wake with memories intact. Retention of memory has also been proven in other large mammals after cooling to +10°C, three hours of clinical death at +3°C. – Cryonics Wikipedia
While this is all still in it’s very early stages and mostly speculation based on evidence at hand, there have been such great advances in bioengineering that some of it seems extremely plausible. While the actual transferring of someone’s mind (whether it be to a new body or computer) seems to have it’s flaws until we full understand how the mind functions. Preserving/moving a brain to a body and or machine seems more plausible than ever. The first human head transplant is on schedule to take place in 2017. The doctor who is planning on attempting it already has a willing patient. He has successfully fixed severed spinal cords in mice and has even made a successful head transplant with a monkey.
Once we’ve successfully transplanted a human head, we will begin to better understand the signals sent from the brain and how to reconnect them. This will in turn lead to the possibility of connecting a brain and/or head to not only a new body, but a machine, as Humai hopes to do.
So what do you think? Will we be able to grow a human brain/body and succesfully transfer someones mind to it, or will we need to create a machine and attempt to preserve our current mind. Is Humai’s claim of 30 years too human resurrection on a machine too ambitious? Let us know.
Women shit and stink, most are fat and ugly. Women carry diseases that afflict good men, and when they have the opportunity, they fuck with somebody else. Time to replace women with sophisticated robots.
Saudi Womans blog
We’ve all heard or read about the strict laws and forms of punishment in Saudi Arabia. The most notorious of which is cutting off the hands of thieves. But many people don’t dig deep enough to know that a thief has to steal a substantial amount to get that punishment. No one gets their hand cut for petty theft, but when you have a gang who goes around robbing houses, then that punishment comes onto the table. In all my years here, I’ve only heard about it happening once. A friend of mine had their apartment robbed. Jewelry, TVs, computers and everything of value was taken. Eventually the robber was caught and my friend’s father was asked if he would forgive the robber or not. His refusal to forgive him contributed to the judge’s decision to have the thief’s hand cut off. I don’t know the details such as whether or not the thief had a previous history of stealing. I do know that this type of punishment does not happen often. Another instance is one time my husband and I met a real estate agent to show us a house we were interested in. This guy was a young apparently healthy Saudi guy and one of his hands was cut right at the wrist. Both my husband and I did not say anything so I don’t know if it was cut off as punishment or due to an accident or illness but I bet lots of people wonder when they meet him.
The punishments that are most newsworthy when it comes to Saudi Arabia, are the ones given to people guilty of khilwa (unrelated man and woman alone together) and extramarital sex. A punishment for khilwa is common and we’ve all come across muttawas trolling coffee shops and restaurants searching for pairs who seem too happy to be related. But what happens after they are caught? I don’t know about expatriates but with Saudis, the man and woman are separated at the spot and questioned to see if their stories correspond. Questions like name, relatives’ names and even color of furniture, address, employment and all other things married couples naturally know. If they fail the test or refuse to cooperate, they are taken to the local muttawa center. The girl’s father is summoned and the guy is locked up usually after being given a few slaps and punches. The girl is handed over to her father (if he’ll take her) and the guy is later released after they put his information into the system. He is then required to show up in front of a judge, usually two weeks later to take his sentence. How he appears at the sentencing decides his fate more than anything else. The way he dresses and addresses the judge has more influence than the number of times he has been caught, how and where he was caught…etc. His best bet is to dress like a muttawa, start to grow a beard, hold his head down and look remorseful. He should also tell the judge that since the incident, he has become a born again Muslim. If he could get an established muttawa from a mosque to vouch for him, then he might be lucky enough to be let go with a warning. Otherwise he will most likely be sentenced a number of lashes across the back.
Extramarital sex on the other hand is extremely serious and at the same time very hard to get convicted for. In the Holy Quran, it states that four witnesses to the act have to be found for it to be punishable. Here, unless a person has confessed or made a tape it’s unlikely to be considered as extramarital sex. Even if an unrelated couple checks into a hotel together, they will only be convicted of khilwa. In cases where a confession is made, then other things come into play, such as was it consensual or rape and whether either of them was married at the time. Infidelity is an automatic death sentence. Singles are imprisoned and whipped.
Young Saudis have their ways to get around these laws. One that I heard of is that they go in groups. Another is that the guy takes his sister along and voila it is no longer a khilwa.
Erectile dysfunction is mostly a vascular disease. An Egyptian professor found the solution. Botox injections into the penis, once every six month. A simple procedure that even nurses can handle.
It can be hard enough to understand women in general, let alone the female climax. So to help you bring her to climax every time—and therefore have more pleasurable s*x—we asked our s*x professor, Debby Herbenick, Ph.D., your top climax questions.
Study up, then start following her advice for hotter s*x.
Q: Is it possible for a woman to have an climax and not make that much noise?
A: Yes. Women—and men—don’t always make audible sounds during climax.
Q: Is s*x enjoyable for her if she doesn’t climax?
A: Women, more often than men, report that they find s*x to be pleasurable even if they do not climax.
In addition to the fact that it feels pleasurable to be touched, many women enjoy the intimacy that s*x provides, the kissing, touching, closeness, etc.
Q: Is there an average time to her climax?
A: It depends in what way she’s stimulated. self service with a vibrator is the quickest route to climax, while intercourse tends to take more time, for the majority of women.
But it varies so much not only but from s*x act to s*x act, but also from woman to woman.
Q: How can a guy bring a woman to climax faster?
A: Women sometimes find it easier to climax if they are relaxed and feel comfortable with their partner.
climax is more likely with a regular relationship partner than a casual partner.
Help her relax by addressing any relationship conflicts, and talking about (and trying to meet) her needs for affection and intimacy. Be positive and complimentary about issues she’s anxious about, such as her appearance or weight.
Also, make sure she is sufficiently aroused prior to trying to have an climax from oral s*x, intercourse, or hand stimulation. There is no magic cue to tell, so talk to her!
Q: Can he bring her to climax during a quickie?
A: It depends how quick the quickie is. There are few women who can climax in less than 5 minutes, but some can.
More often, though, the answer is no.
Q: How can a guy give a woman multiple orgasms?
A: Not all women report ever having had multiple orgasms. In some studies, it seems that less than half of women have reported this.
That doesn’t mean that they aren’t capable of multiple orgasms, but it does mean that we don’t know how many are.
For women who want multiple orgasms—and that is key, guys—try to maintain stimulation through the first climax so that she can keep going.
For women who are neutral about multiples or don’t care, don’t pressure her (and yes, trying too hard counts as pressure) because pressure and climax rarely mix.
Q: What is the best s*x position for her climax?
A: There is no such thing: It depends on the woman. Again, not all women can climax during intercourse.
Some climax more easily from stimulation of the front wall of the v**ina, others more easily from direct stimulation of the cli**ris. Missionary and rear entry are among the more common positions and probably for a reason: Each provides either clitoral or front-wall stimulation, making them good bets for many women.
Q: Is oral s*x best?
A: No, but the direct stimulation of the clitoral glans does make it easier for many women to climax.
Q: How can a guy tell if he really is her “best ever”?
A: If she tells you that.
Q: What about women achieving climax through fantasy alone?
A: We know that it is possible, but relatively rare.
Orgasms resulting from waking fantasies are not at all common, and dreams during sleep are somewhat common.
Q: And what’s this about a bosom climax?
A: We don’t even really understand how clitoral/vaginal orgasms work, let alone how bosom-stimulated orgasms work.
We have various theories, but no one really knows. All we know is that some women (that is, the minority) have had this experience.
I wouldn’t encourage a guy to try to give a woman these types of orgasms because that can result in too much pressure, frustration, and dissatisfaction—and that wouldn’t provide a service to either party.
The Serge Kreutz diet is the ultimate sex diet via the day-long stimulation of taste buds with chocolate.
The Serge Kreutz diet is the world's only diet supported by the international food industry because it tells you this: if you want to be slim, consume more food. Nestle, Pepsi, and Van Houten are happy. And all the farmers.
Index of articles