!WARNING! This video is filled with visual and auditory stimuli that DESTROY gooner brains. Caution is advised. #goon #gooner #gooning #gooned #2dfd #pornosexual #pornaddict #pornaddiction #edging #pornpig #gooncaps $cam $end #porncaps #catfish #bigass #nofap2023 #nofapchallenge
41,451 次观看 • 3 年前 •via X (Twitter)
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
![Red pill drop #6: Warning: some of these pills that I'll be dropping for the foreseeable future. Will be a hard pill to swallow. Some would like to wait until the movie is over to get all of the Intel in 1 drop. If that is you, feel free to ignore these threads. Warning: The video at the end of this drop is very graphic. Proceed with caution. Red cross and abortion clinics are scams. Doesn't make a difference if you're for them or against. Whatever, your reason for using them makes no difference. The cabal controls them all. The blood is harvested from them and sent to the red cross, to be processed. The aborted fetuses and babies are sold to the Black market starting from $300 and up. The older the aborted baby, the higher the price goes. They are then sent to foreign factories, via green container ship[evergreen] for organ harvesting. That is what the video shows. So Proceed with caution upon viewing. In logistics[transportation] the cargo container ships are color coded. Blue is military[govt] red is consumer goods, white is for factory parts, yellow for chemicals, green are for human trafficking. Whether, organs, blood, people, etc. The blood processed is used to make a chemical compound called Adrenochrome. This chemical is used by cabal members to keep looking younger. The adrenal glands produce adrenaline. This is used for oxidation to produce this drug. The cabal believes the younger the child, the more potent the drug Adrenochrome can be. The more potent rich blood they need is actually from Africans and/or African Americans. Which is why they produce famine throughout Africa, and release diseases there, are sorts of vaccines, etc, than any place in the world for genocide. Just look at Haiti. They get most of the children from there. Predominantly, all of the abortion clinics are predominantly in African American neighborhoods. And when they're done with them. We'll this part I'm hesitant to say. Without posting graphic details. Let's just say. They wear and dance with their faces at parties. Then partake of it, like delicacies. It's where they get the tradition of Black Face. The Caucasian children are the main ones sex trafficked. When they're done. Again, without going into explicit details. Let's just say they're partook of. This cabal is sick. All will be exposed. All will be revealed. No deals. And no quarters given. All will get the rope for the world to see.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1636265165816463362/ext_tw_video_thumb/1636265037714137089/pu/img/E2uPL2mRVErU509l.jpg)
![Hi, Kevin. International law prof + retired combat soldier/military lawyer U.S. Army here. I watched the show, too. If you're genuinely curious about the discrepancy between Bill Maher & some groups/agencies on the "genocide" issue, read on. You may not hear back from Bill, but I am glad to bring focus to the discrepancy between Bill's correct opinion & that of "some groups and agencies" that "are in disagreement." To start, let's recap what Bill said in case not everyone did see the show in question. This was an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher that aired HBO Max this past Friday (8/21). His guests for this segment were Dana Bash & The New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters. For reference, video for the full episode is available YouTube here (HBO Max subscription required): & audio is available Spotify here: & Apple Podcasts here: For ease of reference & analysis, though, I've added the clip in question as the first attachment to this post. As you can see, Bill is talking about the current situation in Democrats party. On that subject, he says, "They think Gaza is a genocide. It is not. There's an actual meaning [for] the word 'genocide.' It doesn't come close." This discussion continues for another minute or so, and his guests Dana & Jeremy join in on occasion. What we don't see in this clip is an explanation for what you refer to as a discrepancy between Bill's view & that of "some groups & agencies" to which you refer. That's the point of the rest of this post - to fill in that gap that doesn't get addressed in Bill's commentary. The short answer for clarifying the discrepancy can be summarized in just 2 words: sources & methodology. Allow me to explain. Regarding sources, you need to be aware - if you're not already - that the primary source for establishing international law is ... nations. It's right there in the name: interNATIONal law - or law between nations. And this is probably so elementary it doesn't need to be said, but I'll say it anyway: "some groups & agencies" are not nation-states. At best, groups like Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch & International Association of Genocide Scholars (which prudently nuked its account after it released the ill-advised "resolution" referred to in the screenshot of what appears to be the Google AI search results you included with your post) qualify as subsidiary sources of international law. So, there isn't actually a "consensus" among such groups. The only people who claim otherwise are those who selectively highlight the groups that have claimed Israel ישראל is responsible for #genocide in #Gaza while ignoring the experts & groups who have determined otherwise. Even so, citing to findings of these groups - regardless of where they land on the genocide issue - represents a fundamental misunderstanding regarding how interNATIONal law is formed. If we stick to the primary source of international law - you know, actual nations - only about 1 in 3 United Nations Member States have publicly announced or concluded there is/was genocide in Gaza. Specifically, that's 64 out of 193 UN Member States that have made that determination. 129 have either announced their determination that there is NO genocide or they haven't taken a public stance on the issue (most of the latter are waiting for the final judgement in RSA v. Isr CIJ_ICJ, which likely won't be reached for several years). And how do we know that only 64 of 193 UN Member States have publicly announced a "genocide" determination? Easy. I counted. 64 represents the most generous tally I could possibly develop, and it is still only about 33% of UN Member States (pic 1, and it's a number I assess will reduce even more since I conducted the count about 2 months ago since many of these announcements were made for political reasons & domestic politics in several states have shifted from liberal to conservative since then). Ok, that's the full explanation for the first word in the short answer: sources. You're referring strictly to subsidiary sources as evidence of a "discrepancy" between Bill's view & that of "some groups & agencies." But if you refer to the primary source of international law, you'll notice there is no discrepancy at all. In fact, there is a "discrepancy" between states & this collection of "yes, genocide" groups & agencies to which you refer. And that brings us to the second word in the short answer: methodology. You see, the decisive element in determining whether a genocide has been committed typically involves intent. And assessing 🇮🇱 intent is where these "yes, genocide" groups & agencies go astray. Almost always, they correctly articulate the standard for genocidal intent. We can find that right there in the Genocide Convention. In case you're not aware, "genocide" involves committing specified acts "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" (pic 2). Now, here's the methodology these groups & agencies adopt without exception. They refer to a carefully-selected sampling of commentary from certain 🇮🇱elected officials - often mistranslated, misrepresented, or taken out of context - to establish what they claim to be intent to destroy Palestinians, as an identity group, in whole or in part, as such. For example, they point to a comment from יואב גלנט - Yoav Gallant on 9 Oct 2023 - just 2 days after the 10/7 terror attacks - saying Israel Defense Forces is fighting against "human animals." However, it's clear from the context that Gallant was referring to Hamas, not the Palestinian population as a whole. There's also a quote from Israel ישראלiPM Benjamin Netanyahu - בנימין נתניהו that is always cited in which he says, during remarks televised on 28 Oct 2023, "Remember what Amalek did to you." For those who aren't familiar, this is a reference to Deuteronomy 25:17–19, which says: "Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt — how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. Therefore, when the Eternal your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Eternal your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!" So, this excerpt from this televised address is almost always referred to as "evidence" that Netanyahu's intent is to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, as such. The problem is (one problem among many, actually), this Amalek reference is taken out of context. Because here's what Netanyahu also says during these remarks: "Yesterday evening, additional ground forces of ours entered the gates of Gaza, at the doorstep of the fortress of evil. This is the second stage of the war, the goals of which are clear: Destroying Hamas's military and governing capabilities, and bringing the captives back home" (full speech available here: Notice the part I emphasized with bold + italics text there? The goal of the campaign is clear: destroy Hamas & bring home all hostages. And this is the part that all these groups & agencies conveniently leave out. In fact, returning all hostages (which has now been completed) & ending the enduring security threat posed by Hamas have been the stated strategic objectives of the military campaign in Gaza all along. To expand on the goals expressed in the "Amalek" speech in late October 2023, Netanyahu also indicated on the 2 year anniversary of 10/7 that the "aims of the war" are to "return all the hostages, destroy the Hamas regime, and ensure that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel" (pic 3). With that stated strategic intent in mind, do you think intending to destroy a transnational terrorist group - Hamas - in whole, if necessary, in order to end the enduring security threat posed by said terrorist group qualifies as genocide? No. That is war. And this is where the methodology of all these "yes, genocide" groups & agencies is fundamentally flawed. They fail to start with the actual stated intent of the military campaign in Gaza then assess whether the conduct of the campaign is consistent with that intent or, instead, the intent is to destroy Palestinians as an identity group in whole or in part as such? At this point, you might be asking why they don't adopt a doctrinal methodology to assessing intent. The answer to that question is simple. Because if they evaluated intent properly, they wouldn't reach the conclusion they want to and seek to reach. Instead, they would agree with Bill Maher. It's not a genocide, and "it doesn't come close." Of course, I'm not here to speak for Bill Maher. But if you are genuinely curious why there is such a "discrepancy" between his view and that of the "groups and agencies" to which you refer - that is the answer. Sources, and methodology. If the reason why that is the case isn't clear from the analysis above, I would be glad to continue this exchange - whether in public or in private. #TheMoreYouKnow #NoGenocide #TruthMatters #legaldisinformation](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2091999213307728307/amplify_video_thumb/2091953233426309120/img/_XHOV5KXOlUwFr2M.jpg)
