So when the topic is Christians in the United States of America they are bat-shit crazy Bible thumpers and a menace to you, but the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran* are "rational players" and apparently worth some level of trust. "Interesting" . . .
I think we have a divergence of opinion in various respects regarding this topic. Have you heard of the Islamic concept of "involuntary martyrdom"?
Iran has plans for a nuclear warhead which will fit its existing missiles that can reach Europe, and has previously hired former Soviet experts to assist it, not to mention it being in league with North Korea (which has a nuclear program) and Syria (which had a nuclear program).
It seems to be that you underestimate it.
* Which fields brigades (literally) of suicide bombers and sponsors terrorism (including suicide bombers) around the world.
So are you claiming that Germany, Italy, and Japan aren't democracies? You may recall that the US had something to say about the government in those areas. Iraq is a democracy as well. True, it struggles, but it continues to hold elections and change government by them. What about South Korea? The US didn't establish it, but it protected it. Is that a democracy in your eyes or not?
Israel and Iran were allies when the Shah was in power. The Islamic revolutionary government in Iran declared Israel to be their enemy, Israel did nothing to deserve it. Iran's government makes their interest in genocide clear. Israel would be happy to be left alone.
Are you bitter about the US helping to free France, Italy, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and Luxembourg from fascist rule?
Did you really mean to post a link about Iran supplying the Taliban with cash and arms without any irony? Because that's exactly what we did.
Actually no, that didn't happen. The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet-Afghan war so the US couldn't have supplied them. The Taliban formed during the Afghan civil war following the Soviet-Afghan war, and was still going on when the US invaded in 2001. The US was aided by the Afghan Northern Alliance which was fighting the Taliban.
Your treatment of American military suicides isn't really fair or honest either. Treating deliberate armed violence against US service members by either Iran itself or Iranian supplied militias as being inconsequential is bizarre nonsense. If you want to go down that route you should be able to give us a detailed rational explanation of why the US should have ignored 3,000 casualties on one particular day which plunged it into war when it should have instead stopped all traffic deaths which were more that 10x that amount. No, I'm not talking about 9/11, I'm talking about Pearl Harbor. So please explain why it makes more sense to try to stop all random accidents across the country instead of going to war against the attacker - the Empire of Japan. Once you do that then we can talk about suicides.
The communists of the USSR did a pretty good job of decapitating the existing Afghan government in an invasion, depopulating the Afghan countryside, driving large numbers of refugees into neighboring countries, putting out booby-traps hidden in toys for children, and using Afghanistan to test its new "yellow rain" mycotoxin (poisonous substances produced by fungi) weapons on the population, and generally engaged in mass slaughter themselves.
But I guess you're just here to admire the bridges the communists built. Such fine bridges, eh?
Except that Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm, and then we killed him.
No. Saddam was executed by the Iraqi state following a trial in an Iraqi court for the mass murders he committed in Iraq for which he was found guilty. (Any many people were very disappointed at his early execution date since there were many more crimes for him to answer for.)
Saddam repeated cheated against the requirements that Iraq disarm, fired against coalition aircraft nearly every day, and had his government act as if they still had WMD to fool the Iranians while thinking that the West wouldn't react. He was wrong, on multiple counts.
You do know that there were thousands of chemical weapons found in Iraqi munitions bunkers, right? Do you know about the thousands of gallons of VX nerve gas that mysteriously disappeared? They claim they dumped it in the dessert although nobody knew they had it till after the invasion. Think about that.
It was the Europeans that went after Libya and Gaddafi, at least initially, not the US.
Historically, there has not been much benefit to acceding to American demands.
Not if you plan to lie, cheat, obstruct, and violate the terms as Saddam did, no.
You seem to be making some dubious picks for the "benefit of the doubt" of the month club. Is that just how you roll?
Quite a few of the problems in the Middle East today can be traced back to actions taken by the Arabs themselves. It was Arab leaders that told the Arabs in Palestine to flee so that they wouldn't get in the way of the great massacre of Jews that they planned. Unfortunately for them the Jews had other plans and the massacre never happened as planned, and many of the Arabs that fled never returned. You are also mistaken if you believe that there wasn't a continuous Jewish presence within the confines of the area that formed the Kingdom if Israel that the Romans occupied.
You also misunderstand the coup in Iran. The actual coup was Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh dissolving parliament, faking an election, ruling by decree, and rejecting the usual control of a head of government (Prime Minister) by the head of state (president/king/etc.) which in the case of Iran was the Shah. The counter-coup returned the Shah to power. Mark that - the Shah was in power both before and after the counter-coup which restored the Shah to power.
You also have things wrong about Iraq. If the US had stayed in Iraq, even if in reduced numbers, it is very unlikely that the so-called "Islamic State" would have been able to threaten the Iraqi government's control. As to Bin Laden, more troops in Afghanistan wouldn't have found him since he was hiding in a Pakistani city near the national military college.
Politically, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the best way to hang on to power either side has discovered.
Why don't you see if the Israeli government has changed hands from one political party to another over the years? Then maybe you can see how Hamas and the PLO have head power in their respective areas.
Yeah. What an utter dolt, getting Iran to sit down with the current Great Powers and hammer out an agreement. What an utter incompetent. He should totally just keep doing what Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II did, because boy oh boy, they should had fantastic fucking success with Iran.
You'll note that Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II didn't manage to get a toothless and unenforceable agreement that is unlikely to inconvenience Iran on its trip to getting a nuclear weapon when it wishes. If getting such an agreement is a mark of success to you it might be time to set the bar higher.
You know, I don't think Obama is the best president ever, not even in the top ten, but it takes a complete fucking retard or partisan lunatic to think that somehow he is some sort of bottom-rung President.
Or the reverse of that. Nixon was a better president and Nixon almost went to jail. Even Jimmy Carter's legacy now looks better in retrospect. The damage he has helped heap on the US won't easily be undone. How about a deal? What do you say to a Chief Executive swap between the US and Canada? The interesting thing is you'll think Canada comes out ahead and many of us here will think the US comes out ahead.
But because he's black, because he's a Democrat, and because, well I dunno, because he isn't Ron Fucking Paul, somehow in some peoples' eyes he's the second coming of Satan or something.
Maybe you should try a fringe leftist with bad policies, a perpetual campaign, and an oversized ego that leads him into bad deals and policies? I think it is really sad that the first thing you threw out there is his race. After all, who are you? George Takei?
Iran already has missiles that can reach Europe, a design for a nuclear warhead that will fit on them, stockpiles of fissionable material, and thousands and thousands of centrifuges. They have also put a satellite into space which means they probably aren't far away from being able to put a nuclear warhead into space. (Look up FOBS) (Might as well look up EMP too.)
Not quite true; from what I recall, their democratically - elected gov't (back in the 50's?) was a threat to a particular western oil company with vested interests in Iran... and thus we have the situation you see today...;)
That's not quite true either. The "democratically elected government" was overthrown by the Prime Minister who dissolved parliament, faked an election (getting 99.9% of the vote), was ruling by decree, and rejected control by the head of state: the Shah - who fled the country for his own safety. The coup came after that and restored the Shaw to power while removing the dictator in the person of the "Prime Minister." .
In ''Semites and Anti-Semites'' (New York, 1986), Bernard W. Lewis quotes (page 270) from the memoirs of Khalid al-Azm, Prime Minister of Syria in 1948-49, listing the factors that led to Israel's success:
''Fifth: the summons of the Arab governments to the population of Palestine to leave the country and take refuge in the neighboring Arab countries . . . this collective flight served the Jews and strengthened their position without effort. . . . Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes when we ourselves were the ones who induced them to leave them. . . . We doomed a million Arab refugees, by calling on them and insisting that they abandon their land, their homes, their work and their occupations, and we made them unemployed and homeless.''
The Arabs had considerable enthusiasm for mass slaughter of Jews.
An October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit in the Lebanese town of Aley,[9] by Akhbar al-Yom's editor Mustafa Amin, contained an interview he held with Arab League secretary-general Azzam. Titled, "A War of Extermination," the interview read as follows (translated by Efraim Karsh; all ellipses are in the original text):
Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha spoke to me about the horrific war that was in the offing saying:
"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.
"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world
Did you take notice that I was quoting actual sources there? It isn't just my "opinion."
The Arabs in Palestine fled at the urging of their brother Arabs in other countries that intended to invade and kill the Jews. The Arab leaders announced their intention to massacre the Jews and didn't want the Arabs living in Palestine to be in the way so they told them to leave, and many of them did.
What do you mean? Of course it mattered. The Greeks were offered a deal and told it was the best deal they were going to get. They turned it down. Now they have accepted a worse deal. Democracy is politics, not magic, it doesn't magically fill accounts with funds and ATMs with Euros. It doesn't magically erase consequences of bad decisions and unpaid bills.
So? Is someone planning to set up an "Enigma café" where people can come in and encrypt their telegraph, heliograph, or wigwag messages before sending them? There may be more than one flaw to that plan . . .
So you are confusing your opinion with fact. Gotcha.
No, what I'm doing is introducing new facts that you are apparently unfamiliar with. For some reason you confuse citations from Time magazine and Wikipedia as constituting my "opinion." On that basis you clearly don't "get it."
No wonder I believe such batshit nonsense.
FTFY.
Look, if you so vehemently believe in supernatural beings, why the fuck should anyone listen to you on other subjects?
On the basis of the evidence I present? Oh no! That's too easy!
You are clearly incapable of separating fact from fantasy in your mind.
You don't seem to deal well with new information, try to pass of my citation as just my "opinion" and somehow overlook that many of the greatest minds in history have believed in God. It is very nice that you are concerned about the mote in my eye, when will you be removing the log from yours?
You can keep telling yourself that - it won't make it the case. The coup has been well understood for years, and yet you are arguing some abject bullshit version not supported by the evidence, but which fits nicely with your bizarre outlook on the world.
The actual situation is that a politicized narrative has been repeated for years and that the facts, the evidence I've presented, show key pieces of it to be a fraud. Wave your hands all you want, the evidence is posted for anyone to see, and it won't be going away.
Why do you persist with mistruth? I was inclined to assume you were simply in error but looking at your posting history it seems this behaviour is a policy of yours.
Do you really, honestly feel that telling lies to support your position is appropriate and mature? How do you rationalise and justify this behaviour to yourself?
Inquiring minds would like to know!
The issue here isn't "mistruth" but rather "missed truth." The person missing the truth here is you. If you were truly an "inquiring mind" you would follow up on the information provided in my posts and see that I'm correct. I suggest you try rereading the thread again (or the similar one at another point in the discussion) and pay attention to the posts quoting Wikipedia and Time magazine. Those substantiate my post.
As to any other posts you wonder about I suggest you do some homework. You probably think I'm wrong because you are unfamiliar with the actual facts and rely upon politicized oral history. That is a common mistake. You may very well find that things are not as you have been told, or as you wish to believe.
So I have very little patience for the religious, especially the fundies. If that makes me mean, oh yeah - I'm mean.
I don't know that you are mean so much as you are "damaged goods" that lacks the insight to understand how unusual his experience was, and still overgeneralizes from it. As a result you end up stating nonsense like this: "Hatred is a core value of conservative Christians." Really?
You probably should avoid getting into any auto accidents or you might never travel by car again since they'll probably all become murderous deathtraps to you.
Probably very few, if any, and it is doubtful they will either choose or be allowed to remain for long unless they behave.
Interesting that you assume that atheists have both an interest and so much time on their hands that they feel the need to screw with people on that scale. That would seem to speak to a serious character defect on their part.
Slashdot Mirror
So when the topic is Christians in the United States of America they are bat-shit crazy Bible thumpers and a menace to you, but the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran* are "rational players" and apparently worth some level of trust. "Interesting" . . .
I think we have a divergence of opinion in various respects regarding this topic. Have you heard of the Islamic concept of "involuntary martyrdom"?
Iran has plans for a nuclear warhead which will fit its existing missiles that can reach Europe, and has previously hired former Soviet experts to assist it, not to mention it being in league with North Korea (which has a nuclear program) and Syria (which had a nuclear program).
It seems to be that you underestimate it.
* Which fields brigades (literally) of suicide bombers and sponsors terrorism (including suicide bombers) around the world.
So are you claiming that Germany, Italy, and Japan aren't democracies? You may recall that the US had something to say about the government in those areas. Iraq is a democracy as well. True, it struggles, but it continues to hold elections and change government by them. What about South Korea? The US didn't establish it, but it protected it. Is that a democracy in your eyes or not?
Are you more of a fan of "people's republics" than actual democracies?
Israel and Iran were allies when the Shah was in power. The Islamic revolutionary government in Iran declared Israel to be their enemy, Israel did nothing to deserve it. Iran's government makes their interest in genocide clear. Israel would be happy to be left alone.
Are you bitter about the US helping to free France, Italy, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, and Luxembourg from fascist rule?
Did you really mean to post a link about Iran supplying the Taliban with cash and arms without any irony? Because that's exactly what we did.
Actually no, that didn't happen. The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet-Afghan war so the US couldn't have supplied them. The Taliban formed during the Afghan civil war following the Soviet-Afghan war, and was still going on when the US invaded in 2001. The US was aided by the Afghan Northern Alliance which was fighting the Taliban.
Your treatment of American military suicides isn't really fair or honest either. Treating deliberate armed violence against US service members by either Iran itself or Iranian supplied militias as being inconsequential is bizarre nonsense. If you want to go down that route you should be able to give us a detailed rational explanation of why the US should have ignored 3,000 casualties on one particular day which plunged it into war when it should have instead stopped all traffic deaths which were more that 10x that amount. No, I'm not talking about 9/11, I'm talking about Pearl Harbor. So please explain why it makes more sense to try to stop all random accidents across the country instead of going to war against the attacker - the Empire of Japan. Once you do that then we can talk about suicides.
You have a very "European" outlook towards Israel (the Jewish state). What a pity.
The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews
The communists of the USSR did a pretty good job of decapitating the existing Afghan government in an invasion, depopulating the Afghan countryside, driving large numbers of refugees into neighboring countries, putting out booby-traps hidden in toys for children, and using Afghanistan to test its new "yellow rain" mycotoxin (poisonous substances produced by fungi) weapons on the population, and generally engaged in mass slaughter themselves.
But I guess you're just here to admire the bridges the communists built. Such fine bridges, eh?
Except that Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm, and then we killed him.
No. Saddam was executed by the Iraqi state following a trial in an Iraqi court for the mass murders he committed in Iraq for which he was found guilty. (Any many people were very disappointed at his early execution date since there were many more crimes for him to answer for.)
Saddam repeated cheated against the requirements that Iraq disarm, fired against coalition aircraft nearly every day, and had his government act as if they still had WMD to fool the Iranians while thinking that the West wouldn't react. He was wrong, on multiple counts.
You do know that there were thousands of chemical weapons found in Iraqi munitions bunkers, right? Do you know about the thousands of gallons of VX nerve gas that mysteriously disappeared? They claim they dumped it in the dessert although nobody knew they had it till after the invasion. Think about that.
It was the Europeans that went after Libya and Gaddafi, at least initially, not the US.
Historically, there has not been much benefit to acceding to American demands.
Not if you plan to lie, cheat, obstruct, and violate the terms as Saddam did, no.
You seem to be making some dubious picks for the "benefit of the doubt" of the month club. Is that just how you roll?
Quite a few of the problems in the Middle East today can be traced back to actions taken by the Arabs themselves. It was Arab leaders that told the Arabs in Palestine to flee so that they wouldn't get in the way of the great massacre of Jews that they planned. Unfortunately for them the Jews had other plans and the massacre never happened as planned, and many of the Arabs that fled never returned. You are also mistaken if you believe that there wasn't a continuous Jewish presence within the confines of the area that formed the Kingdom if Israel that the Romans occupied.
You also misunderstand the coup in Iran. The actual coup was Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh dissolving parliament, faking an election, ruling by decree, and rejecting the usual control of a head of government (Prime Minister) by the head of state (president/king/etc.) which in the case of Iran was the Shah. The counter-coup returned the Shah to power. Mark that - the Shah was in power both before and after the counter-coup which restored the Shah to power.
You also have things wrong about Iraq. If the US had stayed in Iraq, even if in reduced numbers, it is very unlikely that the so-called "Islamic State" would have been able to threaten the Iraqi government's control. As to Bin Laden, more troops in Afghanistan wouldn't have found him since he was hiding in a Pakistani city near the national military college.
Politically, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the best way to hang on to power either side has discovered.
Why don't you see if the Israeli government has changed hands from one political party to another over the years? Then maybe you can see how Hamas and the PLO have head power in their respective areas.
Yeah. What an utter dolt, getting Iran to sit down with the current Great Powers and hammer out an agreement. What an utter incompetent. He should totally just keep doing what Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II did, because boy oh boy, they should had fantastic fucking success with Iran.
You'll note that Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II didn't manage to get a toothless and unenforceable agreement that is unlikely to inconvenience Iran on its trip to getting a nuclear weapon when it wishes. If getting such an agreement is a mark of success to you it might be time to set the bar higher.
You know, I don't think Obama is the best president ever, not even in the top ten, but it takes a complete fucking retard or partisan lunatic to think that somehow he is some sort of bottom-rung President.
Or the reverse of that. Nixon was a better president and Nixon almost went to jail. Even Jimmy Carter's legacy now looks better in retrospect. The damage he has helped heap on the US won't easily be undone. How about a deal? What do you say to a Chief Executive swap between the US and Canada? The interesting thing is you'll think Canada comes out ahead and many of us here will think the US comes out ahead.
But because he's black, because he's a Democrat, and because, well I dunno, because he isn't Ron Fucking Paul, somehow in some peoples' eyes he's the second coming of Satan or something.
Maybe you should try a fringe leftist with bad policies, a perpetual campaign, and an oversized ego that leads him into bad deals and policies? I think it is really sad that the first thing you threw out there is his race. After all, who are you? George Takei?
Iran already has missiles that can reach Europe, a design for a nuclear warhead that will fit on them, stockpiles of fissionable material, and thousands and thousands of centrifuges. They have also put a satellite into space which means they probably aren't far away from being able to put a nuclear warhead into space. (Look up FOBS) (Might as well look up EMP too.)
Not quite true; from what I recall, their democratically - elected gov't (back in the 50's?) was a threat to a particular western oil company with vested interests in Iran... and thus we have the situation you see today... ;)
That's not quite true either. The "democratically elected government" was overthrown by the Prime Minister who dissolved parliament, faked an election (getting 99.9% of the vote), was ruling by decree, and rejected control by the head of state: the Shah - who fled the country for his own safety. The coup came after that and restored the Shaw to power while removing the dictator in the person of the "Prime Minister." .
They also have a combined CIA & Special Forces called the Quds force that shapes events in the Middle East like a puppet master.
The Shadow Commander
Just wait till they get nuclear weapons.
Choose one:
1) Iran/Syria
2) ISIS
That is what is known as a "false choice," the US can be against both.
But if it makes you feel any better the US and Iran are both fighting against ISIS in Iraq and the US isn't targeting Iranian forces in Iraq.
Now what about Iranian involvement in Yemen and Lebanon? Any why are Iranian special forces working in Central America?
According to history, and the people involved.
Time Now for a Declaration of Mideast Peace; Doomed Arab Refugees
In ''Semites and Anti-Semites'' (New York, 1986), Bernard W. Lewis quotes (page 270) from the memoirs of Khalid al-Azm, Prime Minister of Syria in 1948-49, listing the factors that led to Israel's success:
''Fifth: the summons of the Arab governments to the population of Palestine to leave the country and take refuge in the neighboring Arab countries . . . this collective flight served the Jews and strengthened their position without effort. . . . Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes when we ourselves were the ones who induced them to leave them. . . . We doomed a million Arab refugees, by calling on them and insisting that they abandon their land, their homes, their work and their occupations, and we made them unemployed and homeless.''
The Arabs had considerable enthusiasm for mass slaughter of Jews.
Azzam's Genocidal Threat
An October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit in the Lebanese town of Aley,[9] by Akhbar al-Yom's editor Mustafa Amin, contained an interview he held with Arab League secretary-general Azzam. Titled, "A War of Extermination," the interview read as follows (translated by Efraim Karsh; all ellipses are in the original text):
Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha spoke to me about the horrific war that was in the offing saying:
"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.
"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world
Did you take notice that I was quoting actual sources there? It isn't just my "opinion."
The Arabs in Palestine fled at the urging of their brother Arabs in other countries that intended to invade and kill the Jews. The Arab leaders announced their intention to massacre the Jews and didn't want the Arabs living in Palestine to be in the way so they told them to leave, and many of them did.
What do you mean? Of course it mattered. The Greeks were offered a deal and told it was the best deal they were going to get. They turned it down. Now they have accepted a worse deal. Democracy is politics, not magic, it doesn't magically fill accounts with funds and ATMs with Euros. It doesn't magically erase consequences of bad decisions and unpaid bills.
So? Is someone planning to set up an "Enigma café" where people can come in and encrypt their telegraph, heliograph, or wigwag messages before sending them? There may be more than one flaw to that plan . . .
Don't you need two?
Not for the strongest form of encryption: write only.
So you are confusing your opinion with fact. Gotcha.
No, what I'm doing is introducing new facts that you are apparently unfamiliar with. For some reason you confuse citations from Time magazine and Wikipedia as constituting my "opinion." On that basis you clearly don't "get it."
No wonder I believe such batshit nonsense.
FTFY.
Look, if you so vehemently believe in supernatural beings, why the fuck should anyone listen to you on other subjects?
On the basis of the evidence I present? Oh no! That's too easy!
You are clearly incapable of separating fact from fantasy in your mind.
You don't seem to deal well with new information, try to pass of my citation as just my "opinion" and somehow overlook that many of the greatest minds in history have believed in God. It is very nice that you are concerned about the mote in my eye, when will you be removing the log from yours?
You can keep telling yourself that - it won't make it the case. The coup has been well understood for years, and yet you are arguing some abject bullshit version not supported by the evidence, but which fits nicely with your bizarre outlook on the world.
The actual situation is that a politicized narrative has been repeated for years and that the facts, the evidence I've presented, show key pieces of it to be a fraud. Wave your hands all you want, the evidence is posted for anyone to see, and it won't be going away.
Why do you persist with mistruth? I was inclined to assume you were simply in error but looking at your posting history it seems this behaviour is a policy of yours.
Do you really, honestly feel that telling lies to support your position is appropriate and mature? How do you rationalise and justify this behaviour to yourself?
Inquiring minds would like to know!
The issue here isn't "mistruth" but rather "missed truth." The person missing the truth here is you. If you were truly an "inquiring mind" you would follow up on the information provided in my posts and see that I'm correct. I suggest you try rereading the thread again (or the similar one at another point in the discussion) and pay attention to the posts quoting Wikipedia and Time magazine. Those substantiate my post.
As to any other posts you wonder about I suggest you do some homework. You probably think I'm wrong because you are unfamiliar with the actual facts and rely upon politicized oral history. That is a common mistake. You may very well find that things are not as you have been told, or as you wish to believe.
That meanness has been earned. ....
So I have very little patience for the religious, especially the fundies. If that makes me mean, oh yeah - I'm mean.
I don't know that you are mean so much as you are "damaged goods" that lacks the insight to understand how unusual his experience was, and still overgeneralizes from it. As a result you end up stating nonsense like this: "Hatred is a core value of conservative Christians." Really?
You probably should avoid getting into any auto accidents or you might never travel by car again since they'll probably all become murderous deathtraps to you.
Probably very few, if any, and it is doubtful they will either choose or be allowed to remain for long unless they behave.
Interesting that you assume that atheists have both an interest and so much time on their hands that they feel the need to screw with people on that scale. That would seem to speak to a serious character defect on their part.
Plus a whole lot of Iran's and al Qaeda's actions.