There’s no physical reason for it, it’s mostly inexperience that can cause it.
Relax, do foreplay, lube up. Don’t push it, take it slow. Won’t be any different from any other time.
Of course, there are exceptions to this. But these are rarer than most people think.
No, it specifically talks about US lend-lease and the invasion of Europe. It’s not talking about the entire western contribution to the war.
The US army says that lend-lease and the invasion of Europe shortened the war. It does not say that the Soviets would have won without the Allies being in the war. Even your source says that the lend-lease and the invasion, even if not the deciding factor, were “a great help”.
Maybe read your sources a little better?
The Axis combined conscripted approximately 40 million men, whereas the Soviet Union conscripted approximately 34.5 million men. Without the Allies they would not have won just looking at the numbers.
The US conscripted 16 million, the British Commonwealth approximately 11 million. That’s a combined 27 million, which isn’t exactly insignificant compared to the USSRs 34.5 million (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1342260/wwii-mobilization-by-country/).
The Soviets were forced to mobilize that many as they were essentially fighting an existential war at that time. They also suffered the brunt of the casualties, in no small part due to a lack of equipment.
Without the Allies, the USSR would have likely lost. Even Stalin knew and said as much. The US entry shortened the war but they certainly didn’t “win the war for the rest of the Allies” or anything. But to minimize the contribution as a “pinprick” is ridiculous and not supported by historians east nor west.
Because the US and UK did nothing else during the war except lend-lease of course. The bombing of German industry, blockades of their supply lines, the Africa-campaigns, extensive intelligence operations, no all of that definitely did nothing and didn’t contribute to the war effort at all.
It’s likely the Allies would have won the war without the US involved, though it’s estimated it would have taken much longer. Without UK involvement, it’s more probable that the Germans could have achieved a victory, though perhaps not a total capitulation of the Soviets. Without a western front to guard as heavily, they would probably have taken Moscow by the end of 41 (irl they were 20 miles out). Japan would also have a much freeer reign in the pacific theatre.
Don’t think they can vote if they’re not a citizen, no?
The form required for deadlifts basically requires you to stand up straight. It’s actually helped me personally to get a better standing form.
Definitely have someone explain and help you with your form though. It can be hard to tell for an inexperienced person if their form is good, and bad form is risky when deadlifting.
The weight doesn’t even have to be that high, it’s all about learning the proper form, which helps you realize a better posture.
Yeah I think it’s a bit of a stretch. Though some people claim that because she’s not explicitly called trans in the game, she isn’t trans. Though that debate is mostly held in the dark depths of the Steam discussions.
"Sir"ona Ryan, is what people speculate.
Sure, but that’s not the hate being addressed here. Those were comments specifically about there being a black guy as a main character.
The fact that it’s a buggy barely playable mess is par for the course for Ubisoft.
Nowhere does it say GHM does it, zionist rat?
I literally quoted it for you. Here, I’ll do it again:
As of 4 March 2025, over 50,000 people – 48,405 Palestinian[3][8] and 1,706 Israeli[c] – have been reported killed in the Gaza war according to the official figures of the Gaza Health Ministry
At this point I’m just going to block you because you can’t read.
And does the article actually name a different number than the Gaza Health Ministry does? Yes or no?
Are you stupid? If the article lists that the number is 48k, and you can find online that the only party that claims 48k is the Gaza Health Ministry, where do you imagine they got the numbers from? Expain how anyone is misdirecting you if the quoted numbers match exactly with what the Gaza Health Ministry claims?
The Guardian article did not explicitly list a source in that article. But it takes a 2 minute search to find that the only matching source has to be the GHM.
The Guardian: “The number of deaths is approximately 48k.”
The GHM: “The number of deaths is approximately 48k.”
You, for some reason: “Aha, proof the Guardian isn’t citing the GHM number of 48k when they say it’s 48k!”
???
At this point you almost certainly have to be trolling to make pro-Palestinians look stupid or something. Thankfully most others I’ve engaged with here seem to be better understanding.
The Gaza Health Ministry are the ones reporting 48k. That’s not a “could” or “maybe”, you can easily Google this.
Or just check here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war
As of 4 March 2025, over 50,000 people – 48,405 Palestinian[3][8] and 1,706 Israeli[c] – have been reported killed in the Gaza war according to the official figures of the Gaza Health Ministry
There’s nothing suspicious or sneaky happening here, your reading comprehension is just not that good.
The Gaza health ministry is under Hamas jurisdiction.
Hey, that one’s actually good, only issue being one instance of “Hostages” vs “detainees”
Doesn’t Hamas also call them that? Or perhaps it’s just translated as such.
This one is pretty damn bad though, spending a disproportionate amount of time uncritically repeating the lies and rhetoric of Israel, it also repeats the lie of Hamas starting the fighting by “attacking Israel” as well as not differentiating between civilian and military casualties on October 7th, before immediately giving a comedicly low death count for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
The entire point of that article is to report on what Israel is saying. So I’m not sure how that can be disproportionate if it exclusively talks about what it says in the headline. I think it makes sense for a media outlet to also report what Israel says, even if it can be disproven (and the Guardian does add that context). The Guardian here objectively reports on what Israel says, which I think is an important function of a news outlet. The Guardian also mentions that the “eruption of violence” started on October 7th, and I’m pretty sure that’s objectively true as well. Before that there was a very uneasy “peace” with plenty of violence to go around, but nothing to the scale of what we saw on Octobee 7th and beyond. Note how the language used doesn’t explicitly blame Hamas for the entire conflict.
The “comedically low death count” is the count as reported by the Gaza health ministry. Of course more people have indirectly died as a result of the war, but that’s a different statistic. Not sure what you want the Guardian to do here, unless you think Hamas is also fudging the numbers or something(?)
"But can the Guardian categorically say it stood up as a genocide unfolded and did everything in its power to report accurately? Certainly not. If Haaretz, a newspaper in a country with military censorship of the media, can have editorials openly using words like ethnic cleansing, what’s stopping the Guardian?”
Israel’s genocide was only on pause: for Palestinians woken on Monday night by a vicious wave of airstrikes, the resumption was no less shocking. More than 400 people – many of them children – were slaughtered in a matter of hours, in an assault that reportedly received the “green light” from Donald Trump. This mayhem was swiftly followed by evacuation orders – that is, forced displacement – raising the possibility of renewed ground operations. Israel’s excuse? A confected claim that Hamas hasn’t observed the terms of January’s so-called ceasefire agreement – the terms of which Israel itself has broken over and over again.
I read the Guardian enough to know that it tries to do two things:
A) Provide a neutral, unbiased presentation of facts and statements from all parties. This does include statements from Israeli officials that are false, but they are usually also provided with the context that shows they are false. It also includes reporting on investigations into the genocide, as well as statements from parties that accuse Israel of genocide.
B) Provide opinion pieces that explain what they think about the war, which in my experience is definitely negative towards Israel (which makes sense), see the linked piece that directly accuses Israel of genocide as an example.
I don’t think moving goalposts to reframe a media outlet that is clearly very critical of Israel as having a pro-Israeli bias is a productive use of time and energy.
Here’s the Guardian article on the condemnation of the attacks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/18/un-human-rights-chief-voices-horror-at-israel-new-gaza-strikes
It does include that Israel is accused of genocide by multiple parties and explicitly includes Turkey’s response, which also directly accuses Israel of genocide. The French response calls out the Israeli justification, saying there’s no identifiable military objective.
They do name Hamas, but not as a terrorist organization.
Here’s a slightly more recent article that focuses on Israel’s justification and Netanyahu’s comments: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/18/israel-gaza-strikes-deaths-latest-update
It contains the justification that Israel provided, but also additional context (e.g. the actual terms of the ceasefire) that show a stark contrast between the ceasefire agreement and what Israel is doing now. The article also highlights the human suffering this has caused. It also concludes by showing the disproportionate death toll that Israel has inflicted on Gaza.
Here’s an opinion article published today from one of the main columnists that is very explicit about the genocide in Gaza: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/19/imagine-silent-terrible-evil-committed-gaza-inaction-censorship
So maybe let’s not attack media outlets that do actually show what is going on and that are willing to call it what it is?
I won’t bother with the Dutch state broadcaster because I doubt you speak the language, but with them it’s mostly the same story, though they don’t have opinion articles and the liveblog posts are a bit more concise. But they too have reported on ceasefire violations by Israel and the ICC case for genocide against Israel, and they often have expert opinions that also call out the disproportionate violence from the Israeli side.
They both cited Israel’s given reason for the attack, the response from Hamas, the critique and condemnation from the UN, human rights organizations and several world leaders, as well as an expert opinion explaining that this could mean the end of the ceasefire.
Both were factual and neutral in their reporting.
To add to this, the university decided to suspend him. The court did also order him to pay a fine to the victim.