30 Afghan civilians killed in U.S. attack.
By on Jun 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
30 Afghan civilians killed in U.S. attack.
“U.S.-led airstrikes targeting Taliban militants who had attacked NATO forces slammed into civilian homes in southern Afghanistan, killing or wounding at least 30 people including women and children, a local official said Saturday.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
no doundt Karzai will be saying “this has to stop”
muppet
June 30th, 2007 at 2:13 pmSee US military screws up everything and kills innocent civilians too.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:17 pmThe winning over of hearts and minds, a Cheney tactic no doubt.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:22 pmThis should help win hearts and minds; albeit a few less of them.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:22 pmIt’s so peaceful here before the troll arrival.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:27 pmComment by Texas Democrat
Sir, you’re going to have to do your part to make it a more hospitable environment for dissidents. That’s the dean’s suggestion. You have a responsibility, as well.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:31 pmCan’t make an omelette without breaking any eggs.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:59 pmCan’t make an omelette without breaking any eggs.
Comment by BottomBoy
I’m sure if they were gay Afghanis you’d have made a different response.
(BTW-NOW THE NUMBER IS OVER 130 DEAD CIVILIANS IN THAT ATTACK)
June 30th, 2007 at 3:11 pmChimpy, Busheviks and Trolls: “They hate us for our freedom!”
Rest of World: “Er no, they hate you for killing their wives and kids”
June 30th, 2007 at 3:14 pmMy God, are there still civilian people alive in Afghanistan and Iraq? Can’t have that.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:16 pmWe shouldn’t have fought WWII.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:23 pmFreedom is on the march! Freedom from the toils of life that is….
June 30th, 2007 at 3:26 pmTrolls, your conservative patriarchs revel in the death of innocent civilians. They know they’re stirring a hornet’s nest and will attempt to justify perpetual military endeavors throughout the world in the fight against “terrorrism.”
June 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pmThis is at least the second time in the last few weeks where we have taken out civilians, especially children, in an attack. It should be noted that the US Military will kill children if the target is deeemd high enough.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIf this is the new standard I say we Nuke them and get it over with, the American Public will be back to Paris-o-vision within 24 hours.
#14,
No, they should nuke us. Not only would it be more appropriate, but it would be doing what the world should have done pre-WWII. Eliminate a murderous nation (which, as some old Germans can attest, most definitely includes the citizenry) before they achieve their maximum potential for murder and crimes against humanity.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pmWe’re winning the hearts and mines of the Afghan people as we kill them. Like in Vietnam what does a terrorist look like? Karzai will most likely get his old job back with the American Oil company. He was appointed as President of Afghan just to get the oil rights bill sign. Karzai left Afghan so long ago but he was useful after the invasion as that was his birth place. Karzai could careless about the Afghan people he’s there to complete President Dick Cheney’s mission. To back Americans didn’t bother to see who was connected to the Carly Group, if they did they would have seen Karzai explaining the rules of the American Company he worked for. Americans were to busy follower Bush’s fairy tale story.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:19 pmLibtards,
In any war where the enemy hides among civilians we’ll see this kind of unfortunate stuff. If it was not for the restraint and expertise of our armed forces we’d see much more of this kind of thing.
But getting back to WWII, I’d like to ask the panel if they know how many civilians the Allies killed in that war? Was FDR a douche? Churchill?
Should we have fought WWII with one arm tied behind our back?
Shall we do the same in Afghanistan?
June 30th, 2007 at 4:48 pm# 17
June 30th, 2007 at 4:57 pmToliver,
Since teen abortion and the topic of how many people think the war in Iraq is going badly has tons more bloggin’ going on I would assume that many people don’t give a damn about civilian deaths in Afghanistan?
So, your fine with your WWII comparison. I guess.
#17 Comparing Bush’s little adventures to WWII is beyond retarded. It is beyond stupid. It is beyond bizarre. It is extreme self-delusion. But it also begs a question: if the stakes are indeed as high as WWII, isn’t Toliver’s manly man president failing rather badly? Why don’t we have a draft, and gas rationing, and other real sacrifices to win this war? Why do the rich get giant tax cuts while less than 1% of this country is really involved in the war in any meaningful way? And why hasn’t a bedwetter like Tolliver been drafted yet and turned into a real man?
June 30th, 2007 at 5:07 pmparsing of #17
Libtards
not an encouraging start.
In any war where the enemy hides among civilians we’ll see this kind of unfortunate stuff.
This is partially what defines an insurgency. To that extent, this comment is true.
If it was not for the restraint and expertise of our armed forces we’d see much more of this kind of thing.
That’s rather debatable, given the overwhelming importance accorded to force protection in U.S. rules of engagement, but even if it were true, it’s irrelevant. This is because the key thing in an insurgency is how the local population views the killing of civilians. Given recent comments by the mayor of Kabul, H. Karzai, I’d say we’re in grave danger of losing the support of the local population in much of the country.
But getting back to WWII, I’d like to ask the panel if they know how many civilians the Allies killed in that war?
I don’t know, but we should grieve every one of them, as we should every Afghan death also.
Was FDR a douche? Churchill?
I’d say not, but I think I’ve lost the thread of the argument here (was there one?)
Should we have fought WWII with one arm tied behind our back? Shall we do the same in Afghanistan?
June 30th, 2007 at 5:11 pmNo, of course not. But this is an indigenous insurgency, hence the comparison with WWII here is misleading. The more civilians we kill, the more we alienate the populace, the more we are in danger of losing for sure.
If you want to draw parallels between Bush-Cheney oil-nazi imperial aggression in invading and occupying the soverign states of Afghanistan and Iraq and Hitler’s German Nazi aggression in the invasions and occupations of Denmark, Netherlands, France, Norway, Czechoslavacia (spp.), et al, you may have a good point.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pmComment by james k. sayre — June 30, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 5:19 pmTypical Islamo-Stalinist snide remark.
Typical Islamo-Stalinist snide remark.
Comment by Mr. President ®
June 30th, 2007 at 5:23 pmDear Mr. President- It is Hitler you are so eloquently quoting.
tolliver go back to the tv rom, mommy has some cocoa and popcorn and the Francis the Talking Mule Marathon is on.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:28 pmYep, this is the way to win the heart’s and minds of the people. So, how many more terrorists did we create there?
June 30th, 2007 at 5:37 pm“In any war where the enemy hides among civilians we’ll see this kind of unfortunate stuff. If it was not for the restraint and expertise of our armed forces we’d see much more of this kind of thing.”
I’ll bet you are one of those who think that any high-speed chase the police get in is justified, even if it is some dumb kid who stole a coke. You wouldn’t mind that that innocent family of 6 in a van were killed because of the high speed chase. They were the price we have to pay to catch that stupid kid. Well, this is the same thing. There is never any justification for knowingly killing innocents.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:40 pmJuan Kerr:
An insurgency is NOT defined by the act of terrorists hiding amongst the local civilian population. Whatever gave you THAT idea? The Taliban is an extreme religious faction that not only tolerates but encourages Al Qaeda style terrorism. The Taliban is NOT an insurgency. Unlike in Iraq, the Taliban offers aid and comfort to our enemies and is a legitimate target.
That being said, you’d think that we would have learned a better way to handle the hiding amongst civilians tactic after all our years in Vietnam and after what happened in Somalia. But, there may be no such better way. Surely you left wingers are not suggesting that American and other European forces just let them get away with that? Eh? You all whine a lot but I see no constructive suggestions other than for Americans to die. Come up with a creative tactic that does not cost civilian lives but still targets the Taliban amongst them who are shooting at you.
I’m not gonna hold my breath waiting for an answer either. I’m too old for that.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:42 pmKilling innocents is never justified – it’s abhorrent and utterly disgusting.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:43 pmKatie: You got it! And as we slaughter innocents unjustifiable, the recruitment of people who hate us increases exponentially.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:44 pm#26
When the “innocents” are supporting your enemy by allowing them cover, then they are no longer innocents.
What? You say they AREN’T allowing them? They’re being THREATENED by the guns and explosives of the Taliban? No! The SAME GUNS AND EXPLOSIVES that the Taliban are using against the NATO forces? But, you say, it is OK for the Taliban to threaten “innocent” lives but our troops are supposed to stand there and die before they kill an “innocent”.
What do you think would happen to those innocents if they refused to harbor the Taliban? I think the Taliban would kill them on the spot.
And the justification for killing innocents is the same as it was in WWII. You may not like this war or any war but in any war, justifiable or not, innocents get in the way of dangerous activities and get killed. Every soldier has the right to defend him/her self. Even if his/her attacker is standing behind a woman and two children. He/she doesn’t have to feel good about it. But he/she will feel good about being alive later.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:53 pmKABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) — The U.S.-led coalition and the Afghan government are investigating reports that as many as 130 people, including women and children, were killed Friday in an attack by coalition forces in southern Afghanistan’s Helmand province.
June 30th, 2007 at 6:19 pmLooks like our “dump and run” pilots have struck again.
June 30th, 2007 at 6:25 pmHell, they’re only civilians. Right?
Bush and McCain are cut from the same mold: just learn to fly, learn the controls, learn to fly in, dump your load and run like hell without any thought of who you’ve killed or maimed. It’s all so easy when you’re without conscience.
What a mindset!
#20, I hereby anoint you Master Parser!
June 30th, 2007 at 7:11 pmThank you for fighting the trolls over there so I don’t have to fight them over here!
#29
But, you say, it is OK for the Taliban to threaten “innocent†lives but our troops are supposed to stand there and die before they kill an “innocentâ€.
I have read #26 a couple of times and still can’t find where he made the comment above that you attribute to him.
June 30th, 2007 at 7:46 pm“When the “innocents†are supporting your enemy by allowing them cover, then they are no longer innocents.”
EXCUSE ME. I fail to see how a six year old is capable of “allowing them cover”. And even if their parents are allowing them cover, there still is no justification for killing that innocent six year old.
How would you feel if you had a lot of trouble with drugs in your neighborhood and the police were cracking down. So, your daughter is next door playing with her six year old friend, but that six year old friend’s parents were drug dealers. The police bust down the door and start shooting. Your daughter is killed. How would you feel about that, jerk!
June 30th, 2007 at 8:51 pm“I have read #26 a couple of times and still can’t find where he made the comment above that you attribute to him.”
Well, ben, you need to put on your eyeglasses. It is a direct quote from #17. I always copy and paste direct quotes. I never paraphrase and I never distort something someone says.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:53 pm#33 “But, you say, it is OK for the Taliban to threaten “innocent†lives but our troops are supposed to stand there and die before they kill an “innocentâ€.
That “innocent lives” are the Taliban threatening? Our troops? We are supposedly fighting a war there so the Taliban do not consider our troops to be “innocents” and we don’t consider the Taliban to be “innocents”.
And, our troops were not standing there and dying. They were attacking. It was their choice to attack.
Gawd, your critical thinking skills are so lacking. I bet if you called your local Junior College they will have a course in critical thinking you can take. You certainly need it.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:56 pm#34 that was a rhetorical question. Not a quote. I should have made that more obvious
#37 You obviously didn’t read the article or any of the articles, did you? The joint forces were AMBUSHED by the TALIBAN who THEN RAN INTO THE VILLAGE to hide among the villagers! It was our forces choice to DEFEND THEMSELVES and not to die for your theory of warfare! Are you apologizing for the attacking Taliban? Be clear now. Are you supporting the Taliban? Does Afghanistan BELONG to the TALIBAN? Do you think the villagers supported the Taliban? If so, they certainly were not innocent. If not then they were threatened by the Taliban and used as human shields. What part of YOUR brain is non-functional?
#35 a police raid is NOT a war. Well, maybe it is to YOU but it is really not an act of war, even if they kill old ladies by mistake. Or little boys on a bicycle a mile away. How would you feel if your daughter was a police office shot to death by some idiot hiding behind a class of school children. Would that make you feel good? Jerk-off
June 30th, 2007 at 9:20 pmOldfart, you clearly don’t understand how to win hearts & minds. And you seem to be in denial that the Taliban are not the same as alQaeda. The Taliban are Afghans; they defeated the corrupt and criminal Northern Alliance after driving the Soviets out of the country.
The Northern Alliance now runs most of the country –as well as the renewed opium trade– thanks to Bush. During the 2001 invasion, Powell had objected to letting the Northern Alliance do the grunt work on the ground because he knew about their rep for human rights abuses.
Newsflash: The war is over. These are police actions. Since when do the police call in airstrikes to battle people with machine guns. It’s pure cowardice on the part of the Americans. They’d rather level a neighbourhood than go door to door. They do consider Afghan life “cheap”. They’d rather 30 to 100 civilians die than 1 US marine.
Of course, why do you support the President of Pakistan when the Taliban are being supplied by that country? What kind of perversion is this? Why are you and NATO there at all? The British military has already decided the situation in Afghanistan is hopeless. And frankly, I think most Afghans have come to believe that the Taliban are better able to protect them than Americans. It’s a case of going with the devil you know.
There’s no question in my mind that this has only exposed the racist foundation of American foreign policy.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:36 pmToliver, are you refering in #17 to Churchill allowing millions to die of starvation in Southeast Asia through a deliberate famine? I don’t think you’ll find a lot of fans of Churchill in the subcontinent.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:39 pmPopulation control!
June 30th, 2007 at 10:08 pmHistorical paraphrase: “We have met the terrorists and they are us.”
Afghanistan: “The other war Bush lost.”
June 30th, 2007 at 10:36 pmDavid,
I have no idea what sand hill you have your head buried in. Anyone who thinks that human rights would be better under the Taliban has severe mental problems. I never once stated that the current solution in Afghanistan is the best solution for Afghanistan. I am hardly an expert.
Nor did I ever say I supported the President of Pakistan.
I DO know that you are full of shit when it comes to fighting a war. Unfortunately I will never have the pleasure of seeing you bravely face an enemy force with your hands over your eyes allowing them to blow you apart to protect an innocent victim thereby uselessly giving up your life and any future you might have had. I guess that the Taliban are SO brave that, if they had the air power, they wouldn’t use it for fear of hurting innocent civilians? or they would NEVER use suicide bombers against their own people, they are such a BRAVE group of fighters. These are people who killed their own women and children when they were in power. These are the brave Taliban.
There was opium in Afghanistan prior to our arrival, there is opium in Afghanistan now – the Taliban not only didn’t try to control it, they encouraged it and used the income to arm themselves. In fact, I’m sure they got a kick out of knowing that it would go to some western country and screw some western kid up. So don’t play holier-than-thou with the opium. If I had my way, we’d develop some kind of poppy virus that would wipe out the whole species. While we’re at it, wipe out the coca plant too.
I see that some of you left wingers have the same mental problems as all of the right wingers.
June 30th, 2007 at 10:39 pmComment by david — June 30, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 10:40 pmTypical Islamo-Stalinist Nut-Ball.
Mr. President:
June 30th, 2007 at 11:18 pmWith all due respect, these weird cobbling together of descriptors has become boring at best. I think that if you would provide context and some rational clarity for your over reliance upon them I might begin to understand what you mean to say.
“The U.S. acknowledged some civilians were killed after fighters sought shelter in village homes, a familiar scenario in Afghanistan that has led to the deaths of hundreds of innocent bystanders this year.”
http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3333514
June 30th, 2007 at 11:34 pmHow would you feel if you had a lot of trouble with drugs in your neighborhood and the police were cracking down. So, your daughter is next door playing with her six year old friend, but that six year old friend’s parents were drug dealers. The police bust down the door and start shooting. Your daughter is killed. How would you feel about that, jerk!
Comment by Katie — June 30, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
Why would you let your six year old play with a child of drug dealers? Don’t you know it’s dangerous to be around drug dealers? Seems a little irresponsible on your part. ;)
July 1st, 2007 at 12:21 amIt’s a simple case of politics and mathematics. 30 dead Afghanis cost us $75,000 and as a result of using remote warfare ensure no American deaths. One American death would cost more than $250,000 and politically the American death contributes to the growing resistance the death cause. So that makes for a simple solution.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:17 amTHIS IS EXACTLY HOW THE NAZIs GAINED THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THEIR CONQUERED SUBJECTS IN THE EARLY PART OF WW2. They simply annihilated 10 or more villagers for every one of their own soldiers who was killed by an insurgent. The attacks against German troops ended pretty quickly, for awhile.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:52 amTHE OPERATIVE DEFINITION FOR THIS MILITARY TACTIC PEOPLE IS…ANYONE ANYONE? That’s right…terrorism.
[Unhinged] Shirley,
Thanks for comparing us to nazis.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:56 amits good that Afghanistan are members of the ICC that stops American troops raping and murdering their women
July 1st, 2007 at 8:38 amOf course we all know that the Taliban never permits raping of women and children by family members otherwise known as honor killings. Nor do they permit the stoning of women and children for “adultery” or marrying outside their religion or for defying the local marraige-maker or for LEARNING HOW TO READ or for not wearing the right clothes. For those of you who can’t think, in this country a 15 year old girl is a child – under the Taliban, she is a “wife” forcibly raped by some old guy she was “given” to.
That some NATO troops are rapists and murderers, I don’t deny nor do I justify that kind of criminal behavior. But don’t pretend that the Taliban are any better. In fact, they are much much worse than that, raping not only bodies but minds. I’m amazed at the number of women here defending them.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:50 amOldfart, you clearly have swallowed too much koolaid. You seem unaware that the Taliban were once thought the best of a bad lot. And you’re conveniently igoring the truth about the Northern Alliance. As well, you seem ignorant of the fact that the Taliban shut down the opium trade.
upright left, do you recall the Philadelphia incident? Read about the city that bombed its own people. It can happen in the USA and it is happening in Afghanistan.
Toliver, if you talk like Nazis and kill like Nazis, you are Nazis. Come on. Don’t you think this looks a wee bit like bombing Warsaw? Don’t you think Gitmo is a concentration camp?? don’t you think the Bush/Rumsfeld approved ‘aggressive’ interrogation techniques would have earned on a seat in the prisoners’ box at the Nuremberg trials?
I’m sorry. You fascist b@stards always claim that we’re naive and cowardly and unrealistic if we object to the suspension of due process, the violation of human rights, and the brutal destruction of life and property. And the only defence you offer is that the enemy is just as bad or worse. That’s hardly going to convince me that I should risk my neck defending your life. I mean, you’re sending boys and girls to their deaths for ideals you don’t even uphold. It’s shameless hypocrisy.
July 1st, 2007 at 11:09 amNow I understand you. You don’t think this is a war with the Taliban or alQaeda; you think it’s a Clash of Civilizations. You’re at war with Islam and they entire culture of the region. Break out the Cyklon B! Oldfart is gonna purify Afghanistan for the White Christian West.
July 1st, 2007 at 11:16 amWhy is America still in Afghanistan??? It’s an occupation. If Bush had really wanted to catch Osama bin Laden, he wouldn’t have cut & run at the battle of Tora Bora.
But the coward did run. He thought he’d do better toppling an unpopular dictator two countries away to the West. And when that didn’t work out, he starting hinting at attacking the country in the middle.
The idiotic statement that you can’t make an omlet without breaking eggs is made even more moronic when you realize the wannabe chef only knows how to break eggs and not a thing about cooking. He can break but he can’t make.
And then there are the lies. LIES. BIG LIES. Read this. It’s absurd. And women in the US armed forces are more likely to be raped and wounded by their male comrades than they are by the enemy. How civilized! Semper fey.
OUT OUT OUT. You racist, sexist, bigoted ba$tards!!!
July 1st, 2007 at 11:40 amhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070701/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
#53 – WHO thought that? The US when the Taliban were fighting the Soviet Union? WHAT ever gave you the idea that the Taliban shut down the opium trade? What IS the truth about the Northern Alliance? Links please.
You seem like a “True Believer” to me. I presume you believe the 9/11 attack was an inside job too? You’re just a left-wing right winger guy – same mentality. Unable to do anything but spout a party line.
This discussion was about civilian deaths in Afghanistan, NOT about bad police actions (btw, you forgot Kent State and Jackson State), habeas corpus, signing statements, torture, rendition. It is also NOT about saving the Afghans for Christianity. There are hundreds of millions of moderate muslims in the world – Afghan doesn’t need the Taliban to remain Muslim.
For me, this discussion was about whether those civilian casualties are necessary and justified or not-justifiable. Apparently you have “True Believer” views on this and cannot therefore absorb opposing facts or think for yourself.
As for me, I’m a true agnostic – why would I want to inflict Christianity on them? BTW, a true agnostic is one who believes it is impossible to know (or prove) whether god exists or doesn’t exist. Therefore the question is meaningless.
July 1st, 2007 at 7:28 pmOld fart, clearly you don’t care whether anything exists or not. And how comforting to know you’re assessing whether a 1000 civilian deaths are worth it. Worth what? What exactly are you trying to do?
America hasn’t been interested in giving Afghans democracy or freedom. All they wanted to do was seize control and build a pipeline. And don’t make me laugh by talking about women’s rights.
You want links??? Well, well. Does this mean you can’t even remember who’s who in this war? You don’t remember Powell’s objection to letting the Northern Alliance move in when it looked like ground troops were needed? Come on. You are a senile old fart. God bless the United States of Amnesia.
For you benefit I’ll give a link to MALALAI JOYA’s website. You can also listen to CBC’s Dispatches July 1st, part II. And then there’s the great Kathy Gannon’s Afghanistan Unbound.
Of course, I don’t expect an Oldfart to learn new tricks. I don’t expect you to even know the names of the players in Afghanistan. Odd. So many Americans dying in these two wars and the Americans don’t really know who they’re fighting beyond meaningless terms such as ‘terrorists’, ‘insurgents’, and ‘Islamofascists’.
And why the fcuk would I care what God you believe in, Oldfart? It’s the Bush administration that believes in a Sunday school God and want to convert the rest of the world. Calling yourself an agnostic is just a cop out like every troll who claims not to be a Republican but a n independent. Get real. And don’t just take the press releases from the White House and do some research on your own.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:43 pmThanks for comparing us to nazis.
Comment by Toliver #50
…if the “bomb” fits…
…C’mon…
…there’s got to be at least ONE plague or natural disaster…
…expressly for warmongering Bushite inbreds…
…in Karma’s goody bag…
July 1st, 2007 at 9:48 pmDavid – you obviously can’t read. Either that or you forget what you write immediately upon writing it.
Quoting David: “Break out the Cyklon B! Oldfart is gonna purify Afghanistan for the White Christian West.” You obviously care what god people believe in but only if YOU make the comment.
In support of your statements that the Northern Alliance is somehow worse than the Taliban, that the Taliban closed down opium growing, and that the war is now a police action you send me to (1) a Afghan’s women’s rights site, (2) a Canadian radio site and a Foreign Affairs site. None of which contained links supporting your statements what so ever.
Like the right wing, you make blanket statements with no support. You have a set of beliefs the source of which you have long forgotten and can no longer support. You are too fearful to test your beliefs against reality and so you think they no longer need any basis in fact. They are “known” to be true. That is what makes you a True Believer.
And, like a fundie, anyone who disagrees with you on any subject is a Republican Troll. LOL.
I’m done with this discussion.
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:42 pm