Well I'll be damned if that's not a 'nuke the muslims' post right there. :-? Unless I totally misread something.

I just wonder what would happen if I said typical Jew _______ or typical black ______ and MEANT IT. I bet there'd be a reaction then, and it would certainly be warranted. So why is it not now?

PD

You can call me a typical white man or cracker ______ and MEAN IT whenever you wish. Remember sticks and stones may break my bones but names/words will never hurt me. Its the PC disease which will hurt us in the end.

My point being (somewhat idealist, I know) is that words/names do eventually lead to sticks and stones. I just don't think it's a good idea for Americans to become comfortable with saying typical _______. That's all I have to say in this thread. :)

PD

I think we should be truthful no matter how hard it hurts. Speak the truth, above all. Eradicate all PC nonsense, and call a horse a horse. Call a dog a dog. For those who are as insecure that would resort to throwing sticks and stones, there's something called law enforcement that deals with assault. ;) We need to use more of it.

Objectivity!

That's right, let's just call religion its rightful name, "opiate for the people". I'd be perfectly happy with that term and noone would be upset. One bunch of delusional idiots ripping another bunch of delusion idiots. Hooray, noone is upset and I'm not going to hell! :doh:

But now the PC madness has made up something called a 'hate crime'. So now government sanctions thought controll and SCOTUS rules that discrimination used to correct past discrimination is the law. We are lost.

Sure. There are idiots everywhere. Religious people as deluisional idiots? Why not call athiest/socialists "opiate for the blind people" then. :yep: These people continue to believe that which has been a failure for well over 100 years, ya know. Can't be more delusional than that. So I guess we're all square, ain't we? :D

I'm not convinced all is lost...just yet. ;)

For what it's worth, though it won't make a difference to you: I was referring to an ideaology, not to a people.

Start the damnation then. :rotfl:

I'm not advocating anything at all in my post but trying to express how Ahmadinejad could seek evidence to try to prove that the Apocalypse is imminent (a matter of years) and change his actions and perspectives accordingly with that in mind. Are you familiar with the Apocalypse? I do not know if this has survived at all in post-Khomeini Iran but in traditional Islam Jesus is a saviour of the Muslims too, the Armageddon cannot be fought by the Muslims. All Muslim soldiers who join to fight on Satan's side are not Muslims any longer. Anyway, if the Apocalypse is imminent then pieces of paper have no value at all as soon as, damn I can't avoid it, all hell breaks loose. :rotfl:

So considering Ahmadinejad is certain of this but also that he's on Allah's side, how would he triumph over the multiple enemies without nuclear weapons, especially if the enemies do have them? In this sense he would be correct to see whoever proposes nuclear disarmament as a servant of the devil, preparing the path to his destruction, and would certainly use all diplomacy as a theatrical play while secretly attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.

That's what I tried to say. I thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt but chances are you haven't misread anything, most likely I have failed to express myself clearly enough.

Now if you ask me what I think of all of this, I say again: I think Ahmadinejad, Khamenei and whoever else shares the same vision are wrong. Starting by the most important element, the prophecies. Ignoring the content itself which do have a great weight on the scale, a prophecy can generally be considered to be certain the longer it has remained true, as generally speaking again many prophecies can be true only untill further notice. Example? Iraq. The Gulf wars are considered as evidence. But who said there won't be a third Gulf War? Or a fourth one? Who said that this war is the war of the prophecy? As unfair a comparison as it may be, compared to the American continent the Middle East is a very hot war zone indeed. In 2400 years power has shifted multiple times, conquerors came and left, kingdoms and nations were born, destroyed, transformed, people changed, migrated, disappeared. All more true then? Only that indeed it is very likely for the Armageddon to take place in Middle East as another but last war. But given the amount of conflicts it's extremely difficult not to say impossible to accurately pin-point it: this is the fulfilment of the prophecy. Untill further notice.

The rest is all non-sense. Forcing things to be true, ignoring facts, liying, it's a big sandbox with adults trying to fit the red square object through the blue-cylinder hole. Minus the innocence, it is done with malice. http://www.exceptionalteaching.net/grp1.html

What about Mr. Avigdor Lieberman

What about the fact that the PLO and Hamas charters, in existance way before Avigdor Lieberman even arrived in Israel, call for the destruction of Israel?

A case of putting the cart before the horse, perhaps? Who needs context!

Crazy bald heads.

War, war, war.

The Israeli government is just as crazy as the Palestinians, by the way.