Any time someone tells you their Christian god is pro life and loves children, remind them of 2 Kings 2:23-25 when god tears 42 children to bits with bears just for teasing a bald man,
“ 23 He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. 25 From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.”

Then have them read psalm 137.9…
“ Blessed the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rock: the children represent the future generations, and so must be destroyed if the enemy is truly to be eradicated.”

Then remind them that god killed every Egyptian baby out of spite against one man.

If you believe in the Judeo/Christian god, you must believe god loves to kill babies, he does it constantly, viciously, capriciously, and joyfully. If Christian’s knew their religion they would be 100% pro abortion….but if they knew their religion they wouldn’t be idolaters, disrespectful to their elders, dishonest, greedy, or selfish, they would live by the most important lesson of their religion, the golden rule…but they don’t even know what that is.

Even “The Rock”? 😂

Gotta say, he solidified my lifelong admiration with the utterly insane “Zardoz”.

Edit: I’ve oddly never watched it, but in Highlander isn’t he known as “the Spaniard” (who is actually an Egyptian) but doesn’t change his Scottish accent one bit? WTF?!?

Just idiotic. Idiotic, wasteful, immoral, unethical, and impossible…

The ancient Egyptians had a better chance at resurrection.
When the preservation process causes more irreversible damage than death, paying through the nose for it is just dumb…especially paying to have just your disembodied head frozen in a vat with hundreds of others who died of something incurable.
Won’t it be ironic when they solve the cell rupturing freezing issues, learn to reanimate dead tissue and repair brains that were freezer burned for decades…only to not be able to cure the diseases they gave you by tossing you in a vat with the other heads! 😂

This is nothing new. The first intentionally cryogenically frozen person was frozen in 1967, and not much has changed.

Also…who in the f*ck thinks “there aren’t enough people, we need to bring back the dead”? What utterly brain dead moron thinks stopping death, even just for the Uber rich, is a good or feasible idea.

In the immortal words of comic book guy, worst idea ever!

*promote an oldie but goodie
A good reminder to those who say the Jews have a historic right to Israel, the Assyrians, Egyptians, and primarily Canaanites have an older, so by your criteria more valid right to control the area.

No, it's just not germane.

You are ignoring they clearly identified the ship before jamming emergency channels and attacking it and it's lifeboats, war crimes even if they hadn't identified it, war crimes even if it was Egyptian.

You are also ignoring that the American ship apparently never fired (it certainly would have if it were Egyptian)and was identified, and that specifically American and international radio frequencies (not all frequencies, the jamming was targeted) were jammed, so there's only evidence they knew it was not a combatant, and none to indicate they thought it was one.

Yes, if we didn't have the tapes that were hidden for decades, that lie that they thought it was an enemy combatant might still fly. (It would not excuse the war crimes) Because we do have the tapes and testimonies proving they knew it was American, or at the extreme least given every possible doubt had confusion as to who the ship belonged to, that long standing excuse no longer stands up and another explanation for why they secretly knowingly attacked their allies and hid that fact must be correct.

@newtboy,
"...there was only one combatant here. *facepalm"

Are you forgetting or ignoring that this incident occurred during the '6 day' war? Israel killed a whole ton of Egyptians in similar fashion that day too. I was making the very modest suggestion that arguing they mistook an American spyboat for an Egyptian spyboat is plausible, more plausible IMO than deliberately attacking an ally.

I hope you at least extend a similar mistrust towards Nasser's Egypt and the Assad dynasty in Syria?

I know it's a stretch, but in wartime telling the difference between an American spyship and Egyptian one could be tough. Jacking up an American flag and using a different frequency for communications is something an enemy might be devious enough to think of...

So you didn't watch the video, where they included audio of them identifying the ship prior to attacking and again afterwards.

I guess you didn't read any comments either, because a few reasons why they would do this have been given.

If unmarked ships/planes were targets, they might have attacked themselves as the attacking planes were also unmarked.

They knew the American ship was there, we told them beforehand. As mentioned in the video, they had to know which frequencies to jam, and they jammed American frequencies, not Egyptian. Again, watch the video, they identified it as American before sinking it.

This.

I get there is plenty of room to criticise Israeli actions and call them too aggressive. This is just not such an example, in any way, shape or form.

As vil said, this happened when Israel was actively at war. Nasser had blocked Israeli shipping and moved Egpytian forces onto the border. Israel then made a pre-emptive strike wiping out the Egyptian air-force, and then launching a ground offensive. The USS Liberty was running as an unmarked ship in the wrong place at the wrong time and Israel hit it too.

Israel knew it was a US military vessel or they didn't. If they didn't, it's highly possible they decided the unmarked military vessel was a threat and hit it. If they did, they decided it was a good idea to hit an American owned military vessel while starting/engaging a war with Egypt.

I can't reason out any situation where Israel thinks it's a good idea to deliberately kill and engage the US here, it's all bad for them. The most reasonable explanation is they attacked an unmarked military vessel in a war zone because they knew it wasn't their own.

I really can't fathom being upset about the King Tut bit. While there are still Egyptians certainly, they don't remotely resemble the culture during Tut's time. Who exactly could there possibly be alive today who would feel at all upset or belittled by that act? Mind-boggling.

Uh......slavery didn't start in the 1700's. It likely began in Mesopotamia as an industry, but probably existed long before cuneiform existed to record it.

Even sticking to Africa, Egyptians used slaves extensively eons before this.

Most active slavers in 18 th century Africa were Arabs or Europeans. Africans traded/sold POWs from other tribes caught during tribal warfare, and later began to actively participate in the European slave trade. They absolutely were not the sole kidnappers, however, nor were they the first.

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

I would like to see some control tests where people's lineage is well known for a couple hundred years. And maybe some explanations as to how the percentage is arrived at. So if your whole family was british and your great great grandfather was 1/2 egyptian, what would that look like?