Actually Iran is supporting Syria with weapons and troops at present. They also threaten Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. They are also trying to assassinate various diplomats world wide. They are arming Hezbollah with tens of thousands of missiles. You a fan?
China should say fuck you to sanctions, supply Iran with yuans and score big time in the region. The US and Israel would be pretty unhappy having China in the other team.
I'm pretty certain the Chinese wouldn't give that a second thought as they aren't unnaturally stupid, at least not the ones that get to make decisions about things like this. China is a long way away from Iran, and they are limited in what support they could provide, especially if hostilities began. Besides, China has ambitions of regional hegemony, and is perceived as an actual bully by its neighbors, the sort of bully that people on Slashdot routinely imagine the US to be, but worse. There are pleny of sovereign nations around China that wouldn't mind various weapons upgrades, and perhaps a treaty or two. Since China would be propping up a nation hoping to pose an existential threat to at least Israel, if not other nearby countries, the question has nuclear significance. I doubt that the Chinese would detest much of anything more than Japan and Taiwan going nuclear. You see, this isn't a one-sided threat at all. I'm puzzled why you seem to think it is, and why it seems to excite you so.
You may recall, well, maybe not, that Saddam did not fully cooperate? His government was caught lying time after time.
I take it you disagree with judicial punishment of those found guilty in a court of law of crimes against humanity, like using chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands of civilians?
The argument is that the rich will leave the country if you raise taxes, and you lose even the taxes you are currently collecting. The middle class and the poor are less likely to do.
I, personally, dont subscribe to this idea. The rich have very few places in the developed world to move to. I would say it is a bluff. Even if they move, the void will pretty soon be filled up someone else who starts a company (or whatever the rich were doing here).
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
Under the bailout, Greeks must now work until they are 67 years old. Up until now, they have been able to retire with pensions at -- take a guess -- 65? Nope. 62? Lower. 57? Keep going! 53? Bingo!
(both parties, in fact, are fascist, hawkish, and pro-corporate).
Both parties would like to see the economy grow - attacking businesses doesn't really help that. Neither party wants to see Americans attacked, especially on American soil. The size of government will probably continue to grow under both parties, as well as the debt, but much faster under one party than the other. One party is more inclined to try to "eat the rich", the other to create opportunities for more to become new rich (and pay taxes).
In short, the Democrats had three in-session months of filibuster-proof majority, all of which were spent trying to get Lieberman and Nelson to break the filibuster.
So, as you have carefully documented, the Democratic party couldn't get all of its members to vote for a controversial bill? That isn't the fault of the Republicans.
It also appears that the Senate did more than just spin in circles waiting for the Democrats to get all of their members to agree to pass their healthcare reform bill. The Senate was able to pass a number of other bills during that period.
S. 2799 (111th): Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009 Passed: Jan 28, 2010 S. 1755 (111th): Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Enhancement Act of 2009 Passed: Dec 14, 2009 S. 806 (111th): Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 Passed: Nov 05, 2009 S. 942 (111th): Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act of 2009 Passed: Oct 07, 2009 S. 251 (111th): Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009 Passed: Oct 05, 2009
Apparently the Senate wasn't completed blocked after all.
Stop repeating that lie. Between the GOP delaying Franken's entry to the Senate through frivolous court challenges,
The court challenges were frivolous, but they did produce a Franken win - I'm surprised you aren't more enthusiastic. Maybe it was the tainted nature of the win?
In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.
Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.
During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.
Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.
Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.
And that's just the question of voting by felons. Minnesota Majority also found all sorts of other irregularities that cast further doubt on the Senate results.
The election was particularly important because Franken's victory gave Senate Democrats a 60th vote in favor of President Obama's national health care proposal -- the deciding vote to overcome a Republican filibuster. If Coleman had kept his seat, there would have been no 60th vote, and no Obamacare. . . More . . .
Morality has been tied to religion in the West, and defined it, for the overwhelming majority of people for thousands of years. Yes, you can have a moral system apart from religion, and there have been many fine, upstanding individuals who were atheists. But in the last 100 years, experience with officially atheist governments have not produced happy outcomes, by and large. Indeed, they have been terribly bloody.
As to the concept of God, you help make my point: you cannot disbelieve in what you have not as yet conceived, the question would not even occur to you. How could it?
From the beginning of Western thought, religion and morality have been closely intertwined. This is true whether we go back within Greek philosophy or within Christianity and Judaism. The present article will not try to step beyond these confines, since there are other articles on Eastern thought. The article proceeds chronologically, giving greatest length to the contemporary period. It attempts to explain the main options as they have occurred historically. The purpose of proceeding historically is to substantiate the claim that morality and religion have been inseparable until very recently, and that our moral vocabulary is still deeply infused with this history. . . . More . ..
----
The belief the is not god has been around long before then belief in any god.
If we want to accept the assumptions here, I think it is much more likely there was no thought of God as opposed to thinking there was no god. Allow me to illustrate. At present, you are very unlikely to have an opinion about the subject I am going to introduce. Does it really exist or not? Is it good? Is it bad? Will I like it? Will I loath it? Why? Because you have no idea what I am talking about, there is nothing for your mind to engage on, to decide on. You have no opinion since you don't even know what I am talking about. The subject is a sort of fish dish. Well, now there is something more concrete - probably most people like some sort of fish, some don't. Now you have more to go on, the mind is working. Thoughts about fish are beginning to form. Many people who have had fish are thinking a special fish dish could be interesting, and even good. Perhaps it is a special type of tuna, yum! Ah, but this is indeed a special fish dish - a Scandinavian, really Swedish, specialty. It is herring! Oh, but this is silly, most people have heard of herring, many have tried it, so it must be good, and we know herring exists! Ah, but this is "special" herring - it is canned herring, a common thing, but with a difference. . . the cans are bulging. . . the fish is fermenting, which is a polite way of saying rotting. Ick! Nobody would eat rotting food, especially meat, especially fish! This must be a joke, there is no way that could be true, no way anyone could like it. And think of the danger of botulism. . . . So, do people eat it? true or not? First we didn't even know the subject and could make no judgments. Then we came to know more, and more, and now we need to decide, do Swedish people eat rotting herring? A little more information - when the cans are opened, it smells like a used diaper mixed with rotten egg and raw onion . So, opinions are forming and reforming, we know more and more, and now we must decide. . . do people really eat rotten fish that smells like a soiled diaper, rotten eggs, and raw onion? Or do they simply do what anyone else would do, realize their special snack which might have been a tasty treat has actually spoiled, is now contaminated with deadly toxins from the microbes, and now must be thrown away? The answer is, sane people throw it away, it is crazy to eat rotting meat. That is, unless you are Swedish, and the fish is Surströmming . In that case the can is opened outdoors, to be polite, and the fish is served on various types of flat bread with potatoes, a slice of onion or various other things, a glass of akvavit or beer, and enjoyed. (More
but on the other hand living within a highly-militarized police state.
If you think that the United Stated is a "highly-militarized police state," you have a fundamental misunderstanding of either the United States or what constitutes a "highly-militarized police state." That is quite ridiculous.
And you can't see the problem with believing information published on sites with a vested interest in the bible being reliable?
Please, feel free to find contradictory evidence. I doubt you'll find much. The accuracy of transmission of the Bible has been know for quite some time.
Being able to reconstruct the New Testament from just contemporaneous quotations alone is kind of hard to fake. That is a problem that the "birthers" run into with Obama's birth announcement in the Hawaii paper from the time. But feel free to be a Bible "birther", it probably won't be more credible.
A deity who is only "virtually free from any corruption" doesn't sound that good to me.
God is free from corruption, but the Bible that man has copied has rare and generally insignificant variations in the text. Of course, you are deliberately misstating things too.
Thank you, that is an interesting post. Of course it accepts that the transmission of the Old Testament for at least 2,100 years or so as being very accurate. It then raises some issues about older versions. I've started looking at it, and have already found some interesting things.
. . . some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.
It turns out that the book of Daniel was found with several variants as well, but it appears that actually helped clarify some matters with careful study. I won't be surprised if other books turn out the same. And it is worth noting that having three "families" of versions of a book with accurate transmission is a different question than chaos in the content.
Then USA is Japan . . . If there was ever a "cyber-Pearl Harbor", then Iran was Hawai, and USA were playing the role of Japan. Stuxnet was the first strike, you know...
On the contrary, Stuxnet wasn't "Pearl Harbor", it was Kursk, where the US is the Russians and Iran is the Germans. Specifically Stuxnet is the counter-preparation fire to delay, disorganize, and confuse them, but it won't ultimately stop them. Stopping them would take wise leaders, and Iran has fanatics. Pearl Harbor was a strike on a nation at peace with the attacker, and the counter-preparation fire at Kursk was a strike against an adversary at war that is preparing a deadly move - in Iran's case, nuclear weapons. Iran considers itself at war with the United States and Israel, and will probably extend that to Europe. Why do you think missile defenses provided by the US are going into Europe? Hint: It isn't to defend against an American attack. It is related to the fact that Iran has been observed redesigning their long range Shahab 3 missile warheads, replacing the conventional shape with a spherical nuclear payload.
Just after 0200 on 5 July 1943, Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov received the call he had been waiting for. It was General Pukhov, commander of the Thirteenth Army, reporting that he had captured a German sapper. After some "persuasion,” the sapper stated that the anticipated German offensive against the Kursk salient would commence at 0300, less than an hour away. There was no time to lose. Without hesitation, Zhukov turned to Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky, commander of the Central Front, and ordered the artillery counter-preparation to begin immediately.1
At 0220, 10 minutes before German preparatory fires were to begin, the Central Front’s command post trembled as more than 600 Soviet howitzers, Katyushas2 and mortars opened fire on known and templated German artillery positions. This counter-preparation lasted for only 30 minutes but had a devastating impact on unsuspecting German forces preparing to attack. German artillery was unable to return fire in any organized manner until 0445, delaying the attack until 0530—two and one half-hours behind schedule.3
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing in this discussion will be alarmist or overstated in any way.
Saddam stole the food money to build lavish palaces, and you blame the UN, West, and US. Please educate yourself, or is it oikophobia?
Saddam’s palaces triple in 10 years
Actually Iran is supporting Syria with weapons and troops at present. They also threaten Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. They are also trying to assassinate various diplomats world wide. They are arming Hezbollah with tens of thousands of missiles. You a fan?
China should say fuck you to sanctions, supply Iran with yuans and score big time in the region. The US and Israel would be pretty unhappy having China in the other team.
I'm pretty certain the Chinese wouldn't give that a second thought as they aren't unnaturally stupid, at least not the ones that get to make decisions about things like this. China is a long way away from Iran, and they are limited in what support they could provide, especially if hostilities began. Besides, China has ambitions of regional hegemony, and is perceived as an actual bully by its neighbors, the sort of bully that people on Slashdot routinely imagine the US to be, but worse. There are pleny of sovereign nations around China that wouldn't mind various weapons upgrades, and perhaps a treaty or two. Since China would be propping up a nation hoping to pose an existential threat to at least Israel, if not other nearby countries, the question has nuclear significance. I doubt that the Chinese would detest much of anything more than Japan and Taiwan going nuclear. You see, this isn't a one-sided threat at all. I'm puzzled why you seem to think it is, and why it seems to excite you so.
Other nations already taking actions: Moscow plays on fears of China in global quest for naval bases
You may recall, well, maybe not, that Saddam did not fully cooperate? His government was caught lying time after time.
I take it you disagree with judicial punishment of those found guilty in a court of law of crimes against humanity, like using chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands of civilians?
The argument is that the rich will leave the country if you raise taxes, and you lose even the taxes you are currently collecting. The middle class and the poor are less likely to do.
I, personally, dont subscribe to this idea. The rich have very few places in the developed world to move to. I would say it is a bluff. Even if they move, the void will pretty soon be filled up someone else who starts a company (or whatever the rich were doing here).
France's proposed tax hikes spark 'exodus' of wealthy
In Maryland, Higher Taxes Chase Out Rich: Study
Caterpillar threatens to leave Illinois over taxes
Through the magic of commerce they can move and continue their business from a new location.
Who is getting squeezed?
2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
Greek debt: Bailout concessions not nearly Spartan enough
Under the bailout, Greeks must now work until they are 67 years old. Up until now, they have been able to retire with pensions at -- take a guess -- 65? Nope. 62? Lower. 57? Keep going! 53? Bingo!
(both parties, in fact, are fascist, hawkish, and pro-corporate).
Both parties would like to see the economy grow - attacking businesses doesn't really help that.
Neither party wants to see Americans attacked, especially on American soil.
The size of government will probably continue to grow under both parties, as well as the debt, but much faster under one party than the other.
One party is more inclined to try to "eat the rich", the other to create opportunities for more to become new rich (and pay taxes).
To pretend there is no difference is nonsense.
In short, the Democrats had three in-session months of filibuster-proof majority, all of which were spent trying to get Lieberman and Nelson to break the filibuster.
So, as you have carefully documented, the Democratic party couldn't get all of its members to vote for a controversial bill? That isn't the fault of the Republicans.
It also appears that the Senate did more than just spin in circles waiting for the Democrats to get all of their members to agree to pass their healthcare reform bill. The Senate was able to pass a number of other bills during that period.
S. 2799 (111th): Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009 Passed: Jan 28, 2010
S. 1755 (111th): Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Enhancement Act of 2009 Passed: Dec 14, 2009
S. 806 (111th): Federal Executive Board Authorization Act of 2009 Passed: Nov 05, 2009
S. 942 (111th): Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act of 2009 Passed: Oct 07, 2009
S. 251 (111th): Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009 Passed: Oct 05, 2009
Apparently the Senate wasn't completed blocked after all.
Stop repeating that lie. Between the GOP delaying Franken's entry to the Senate through frivolous court challenges,
The court challenges were frivolous, but they did produce a Franken win - I'm surprised you aren't more enthusiastic. Maybe it was the tainted nature of the win?
York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots
In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.
Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.
During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.
Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.
Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.
And that's just the question of voting by felons. Minnesota Majority also found all sorts of other irregularities that cast further doubt on the Senate results.
The election was particularly important because Franken's victory gave Senate Democrats a 60th vote in favor of President Obama's national health care proposal -- the deciding vote to overcome a Republican filibuster. If Coleman had kept his seat, there would have been no 60th vote, and no Obamacare. . . More . . .
If they are able to get the economy expanding, create jobs, and widen the tax base, which will also help cut government spending for social services such as unemployment, the Republican plan can work, assuming some spending control.
I guess we have it on your authority then that personal liberty is overrated and limited government is a horror? Yep.
Evil? Immoral? Putrid or rancid? Three sides of one coin, if you're ignorant of root cause.
You may have something there as to dietary law, but I'm not sure you're going to be able to follow that path and get close to:
The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:31
By the way, I wasn't serious about the rant thing. I apologize if you took offense.
Morality has been tied to religion in the West, and defined it, for the overwhelming majority of people for thousands of years. Yes, you can have a moral system apart from religion, and there have been many fine, upstanding individuals who were atheists. But in the last 100 years, experience with officially atheist governments have not produced happy outcomes, by and large. Indeed, they have been terribly bloody.
As to the concept of God, you help make my point: you cannot disbelieve in what you have not as yet conceived, the question would not even occur to you. How could it?
Excuse me? Since when has religion had much to do with morality?
I guess you've missed a few thousand years of history?
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Religion and Morality
From the beginning of Western thought, religion and morality have been closely intertwined. This is true whether we go back within Greek philosophy or within Christianity and Judaism. The present article will not try to step beyond these confines, since there are other articles on Eastern thought. The article proceeds chronologically, giving greatest length to the contemporary period. It attempts to explain the main options as they have occurred historically. The purpose of proceeding historically is to substantiate the claim that morality and religion have been inseparable until very recently, and that our moral vocabulary is still deeply infused with this history. . . . More . . .
----
The belief the is not god has been around long before then belief in any god.
If we want to accept the assumptions here, I think it is much more likely there was no thought of God as opposed to thinking there was no god. Allow me to illustrate. At present, you are very unlikely to have an opinion about the subject I am going to introduce. Does it really exist or not? Is it good? Is it bad? Will I like it? Will I loath it? Why? Because you have no idea what I am talking about, there is nothing for your mind to engage on, to decide on. You have no opinion since you don't even know what I am talking about. The subject is a sort of fish dish. Well, now there is something more concrete - probably most people like some sort of fish, some don't. Now you have more to go on, the mind is working. Thoughts about fish are beginning to form. Many people who have had fish are thinking a special fish dish could be interesting, and even good. Perhaps it is a special type of tuna, yum! Ah, but this is indeed a special fish dish - a Scandinavian, really Swedish, specialty. It is herring! Oh, but this is silly, most people have heard of herring, many have tried it, so it must be good, and we know herring exists! Ah, but this is "special" herring - it is canned herring, a common thing, but with a difference. . . the cans are bulging. . . the fish is fermenting, which is a polite way of saying rotting. Ick! Nobody would eat rotting food, especially meat, especially fish! This must be a joke, there is no way that could be true, no way anyone could like it. And think of the danger of botulism. . . . So, do people eat it? true or not? First we didn't even know the subject and could make no judgments. Then we came to know more, and more, and now we need to decide, do Swedish people eat rotting herring? A little more information - when the cans are opened, it smells like a used diaper mixed with rotten egg and raw onion . So, opinions are forming and reforming, we know more and more, and now we must decide. . . do people really eat rotten fish that smells like a soiled diaper, rotten eggs, and raw onion? Or do they simply do what anyone else would do, realize their special snack which might have been a tasty treat has actually spoiled, is now contaminated with deadly toxins from the microbes, and now must be thrown away? The answer is, sane people throw it away, it is crazy to eat rotting meat. That is, unless you are Swedish, and the fish is Surströmming . In that case the can is opened outdoors, to be polite, and the fish is served on various types of flat bread with potatoes, a slice of onion or various other things, a glass of akvavit or beer, and enjoyed. (More
but on the other hand living within a highly-militarized police state.
If you think that the United Stated is a "highly-militarized police state," you have a fundamental misunderstanding of either the United States or what constitutes a "highly-militarized police state." That is quite ridiculous.
I doubt you really understand what fascism is about.
IIRC, the skyhook was featured in "The Green Berets" (1968).
You are correct: extraction method
And you can't see the problem with believing information published on sites with a vested interest in the bible being reliable?
Please, feel free to find contradictory evidence. I doubt you'll find much. The accuracy of transmission of the Bible has been know for quite some time.
Being able to reconstruct the New Testament from just contemporaneous quotations alone is kind of hard to fake. That is a problem that the "birthers" run into with Obama's birth announcement in the Hawaii paper from the time. But feel free to be a Bible "birther", it probably won't be more credible.
A deity who is only "virtually free from any corruption" doesn't sound that good to me.
God is free from corruption, but the Bible that man has copied has rare and generally insignificant variations in the text. Of course, you are deliberately misstating things too.
Thank you, that is an interesting post. Of course it accepts that the transmission of the Old Testament for at least 2,100 years or so as being very accurate. It then raises some issues about older versions. I've started looking at it, and have already found some interesting things.
. . . some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.
It turns out that the book of Daniel was found with several variants as well, but it appears that actually helped clarify some matters with careful study. I won't be surprised if other books turn out the same. And it is worth noting that having three "families" of versions of a book with accurate transmission is a different question than chaos in the content.
Mod points: For when you just don't have a counter-argument and the facts are against you.
Then USA is Japan . . . If there was ever a "cyber-Pearl Harbor", then Iran was Hawai, and USA were playing the role of Japan. Stuxnet was the first strike, you know...
On the contrary, Stuxnet wasn't "Pearl Harbor", it was Kursk, where the US is the Russians and Iran is the Germans. Specifically Stuxnet is the counter-preparation fire to delay, disorganize, and confuse them, but it won't ultimately stop them. Stopping them would take wise leaders, and Iran has fanatics. Pearl Harbor was a strike on a nation at peace with the attacker, and the counter-preparation fire at Kursk was a strike against an adversary at war that is preparing a deadly move - in Iran's case, nuclear weapons. Iran considers itself at war with the United States and Israel, and will probably extend that to Europe. Why do you think missile defenses provided by the US are going into Europe? Hint: It isn't to defend against an American attack. It is related to the fact that Iran has been observed redesigning their long range Shahab 3 missile warheads, replacing the conventional shape with a spherical nuclear payload.
Fire Support at the Battle of Kursk
Just after 0200 on 5 July 1943, Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov received the call he had been waiting for. It was General Pukhov, commander of the Thirteenth Army, reporting that he had captured a German sapper. After some "persuasion,” the sapper stated that the anticipated German offensive against the Kursk salient would commence at 0300, less than an hour away. There was no time to lose. Without hesitation, Zhukov turned to Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky, commander of the Central Front, and ordered the artillery counter-preparation to begin immediately.1
At 0220, 10 minutes before German preparatory fires were to begin, the Central Front’s command post trembled as more than 600 Soviet howitzers, Katyushas2 and mortars opened fire on known and templated German artillery positions. This counter-preparation lasted for only 30 minutes but had a devastating impact on unsuspecting German forces preparing to attack. German artillery was unable to return fire in any organized manner until 0445, delaying the attack until 0530—two and one half-hours behind schedule.3
Um, something about Jesus, Jews and a cross, keeps coming to mind.
You seem to be forgetting something - kind of important too, as far as Christianity goes - something about an empty tomb.