America's CIA Recruited Iran's Nuclear Scientists - By Threatening To Kill Them (newyorker.com) 126
A former U.S. spy spoke to The New Yorker about "years of clandestine work for the C.I.A. — which, he said, had 'prevented Iran from getting a nuke'."
[Kevin] Chalker told me that, as he understood it, the Pentagon had suggested running commando operations to kill key Iranian scientists, as Israel subsequently did. But the C.I.A. proposed recruiting those scientists to defect, as U.S. spies had once courted Soviet physicists. Chalker paraphrased the agency's pitch: "We can debrief them and learn so much more — and, if they say no, then you can kill them." (A more senior agency official confirmed the broad strokes of his account.) The White House liked the agency's idea, and [president George W.] Bush authorized the C.I.A. to conduct clandestine operations to stop Iran from building a bomb. The C.I.A. program that Chalker described to me became publicly known in 2007, when the Los Angeles Times reported on the existence of an agency project called Brain Drain. But the details of the "invitations" to Iranian scientists have not previously been reported...
Chalker typically had about ten minutes to explain, as gently as possible, that he was from the C.I.A., that he had the power to secure the scientist and his family a comfortable new life in the U.S. — and that, if the offer was rejected, the scientist, regrettably, would be assassinated. (Chalker tried to emphasize the happier potential outcome.) Killing a civilian scientist would violate international law. The American government has denied ever doing it, and I found no evidence that the U.S. has carried out any such murders. A former senior agency official familiar with the Brain Drain project told me all that mattered was that Iranian scientists had believed they would be killed, regardless of whether the U.S. actually made good on the threat. And Israel had been conducting a campaign to assassinate Iranian scientists, which made the prospect of lethal reprisal highly plausible. Other former officials with knowledge of the project told me that the C.I.A. sometimes shared intelligence with Mossad which enabled its operatives to locate and kill a scientist. Such information exchanges were kept vague enough to preserve deniability if a more legalistic U.S. Administration later took office...
[Chalker] is confident that those who rebuffed him were, in fact, killed — one way or another... One of Chalker's colleagues told me that, against the backdrop of so many Israeli assassinations, Chalker's interactions with Iranian scientists could almost be considered humanitarian — he had been "throwing them a lifeline." Of the many scientists he approached, three-quarters ultimately agreed to coöperate.
Their 10,000-word article suggests Chalker may now be resentful the CIA didn't help him in a later unrelated lawsuit, noting it's "nearly unheard of for ex-spies to divulge their past activities."
But Chalker also says he "helped obtain pivotal information that laid the groundwork for more than a decade of American efforts to disrupt the Iranian nuclear-weapons program, from the Stuxnet cyberattacks, which occurred around 2010 [destroying 1,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges], to the Obama Administration's nuclear deal, in 2015, to the U.S. air strikes on Iranian atomic-energy facilities in the summer of 2025."
Chalker typically had about ten minutes to explain, as gently as possible, that he was from the C.I.A., that he had the power to secure the scientist and his family a comfortable new life in the U.S. — and that, if the offer was rejected, the scientist, regrettably, would be assassinated. (Chalker tried to emphasize the happier potential outcome.) Killing a civilian scientist would violate international law. The American government has denied ever doing it, and I found no evidence that the U.S. has carried out any such murders. A former senior agency official familiar with the Brain Drain project told me all that mattered was that Iranian scientists had believed they would be killed, regardless of whether the U.S. actually made good on the threat. And Israel had been conducting a campaign to assassinate Iranian scientists, which made the prospect of lethal reprisal highly plausible. Other former officials with knowledge of the project told me that the C.I.A. sometimes shared intelligence with Mossad which enabled its operatives to locate and kill a scientist. Such information exchanges were kept vague enough to preserve deniability if a more legalistic U.S. Administration later took office...
[Chalker] is confident that those who rebuffed him were, in fact, killed — one way or another... One of Chalker's colleagues told me that, against the backdrop of so many Israeli assassinations, Chalker's interactions with Iranian scientists could almost be considered humanitarian — he had been "throwing them a lifeline." Of the many scientists he approached, three-quarters ultimately agreed to coöperate.
Their 10,000-word article suggests Chalker may now be resentful the CIA didn't help him in a later unrelated lawsuit, noting it's "nearly unheard of for ex-spies to divulge their past activities."
But Chalker also says he "helped obtain pivotal information that laid the groundwork for more than a decade of American efforts to disrupt the Iranian nuclear-weapons program, from the Stuxnet cyberattacks, which occurred around 2010 [destroying 1,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges], to the Obama Administration's nuclear deal, in 2015, to the U.S. air strikes on Iranian atomic-energy facilities in the summer of 2025."
Are we the baddied? (Score:5, Interesting)
SS Officer #2: Er, Hans?
SS Officer #1: Have courage, my friend.
SS Officer #2: Yeah. Er, Hans, I've just noticed something...
SS Officer #1: [Looking through binoculars] These communists are all cowards.
SS Officer #2: Have you looked at our caps recently?
SS Officer #1: Our caps?
SS Officer #2: The badges on our caps, have you looked at them?
SS Officer #1: What? No. A bit.
SS Officer #2: They've got skulls on them. Have you noticed that our caps have actually got little pictures of skulls on them?
SS Officer #1: Uh, I don't...
SS Officer #2: Hans... are we the baddies?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, this is an example of the CIA on good behaviour. No ACTUAL assassinations, probably, not a whiff of torture, not a single government overthrown.
Cool story bro (Score:2)
But aren't spies supposed to, you know... keep secrets? What is he pitching a period drama to Hulu or something?
With Trump president? (Score:1, Interesting)
What pisses me off is the Democrats kept putting Republicans in charge of prosecuting Trump because they were so desperate to appear unbiased. Fuck that shit look where
Re: (Score:2)
New Yorker is not the NYT (Score:4, Informative)
...and the ./ poster igoring the source: the New York Times, which a....
The source was The New Yorker, not the New York Times.
Different things, even if they both have "New York" as part of their name.
Re: (Score:2)
TY
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The USA is being the cruel, selfish hypocrite it has always been. It's fitting that its current target is its own citizens: Now, the USA has a blood-thirsty dictator, albeit, one bad at committing mass murder, so far.
The USA pretends to buy Israel but Israel super-enriches uranium any
Re: Understand the NYT's and the ex-agent's agenda (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA has introduced two new problems every time they tried to fix one by being ignorant murderers.
Vietnam firmly entrenched the horrible NV maoists in power.
Irak created ISIS.
Al-Qaeda was another one, born out of US interference in the Middle East.
I'll admit that Hamas and Hezbollah were the result of Israels actions and even outright support in the case of Hamas, but that was underpinned by the USA.
Afghanistan? Do I even need to say anything?
Iran being controlled by Khomeini was the direct result of murdering the democratically elected leader and installing a dictator.
Don't even get me started on South America. Those people crossing your border in the South are the direct result of the USA installing dictators and reducing the people to poverty.
There is no high ground to find for the USA. They only create problems. They've never solved one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Understand the NYT's and the ex-agent's agenda (Score:5, Informative)
Your understanding of what happened is very wrong. The people the US sent to El Salvador to be tortured were Venezuelan.
While no US citizens were involved in this particular atrocity, Trump and Miller:
- Sent 238 people to the CECOT concentration camp
- Ignored any due process to send them
- Ignored court orders that were issued while the planes were still on the ground
- Pretended we were in a "war" in order to use the Alien Enemies Act
- Sent people who were in the US legally (about 75% of them were)
- Sent people who had absolutely no criminal record (at least 50 documented cases)
- Never reported their names; the US literally disappeared them
- Paid El Salvador to take them
- Made proposals to send US citizens to be tortured
- Freed a convicted murderer as part of the exchange that Venezuela arranged for its citizens
The people sent to the CECOT concentration were repeatedly beaten, tortured, and sexually abused
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The US is still deporting people to third countries, i.e. countries that the deportees have no history with or ties to. Deportees like these have been killed, arrested, and tortured.
https://refugees.org/tcdtracke... [refugees.org]
Re:Understand the NYT's and the ex-agent's agenda (Score:4, Insightful)
The US should treat all refugees the way Trump and Miller treat white refugees.
Re: Understand the NYT's and the ex-agent's agenda (Score:3)
Yeah that is a load of rubbish. Both the UK and the Soviet Union invaded Persia in WWII, to secure supply routes essential to defeating the Nazi's. Want to blame anyone for that then blame the Germans. After WWII, the Soviets in typically Russian fashion spent a lot of time interfering in Persia to install a communist regime (they did the same thing in Afghanistan). The USA intervened to prevent that happening. If you think the Shahs regime was remotely as bad as the current one you are an imbecile. The tot
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the Shahs regime was remotely as bad as the current one you are an imbecile.
Let's stipulate that the current government of Iran is horrible and evil. Reportedly 30,000 people killed just for protesting against the government. Does that give the US -- or any other country -- a legal or moral right to attack Iran, or to try to overthrow their government, or to start a war? No, it doesn't. Not at all.
How many countries has the US invaded since, say, the year 2000? How many deaths have resulted? And how many countries has Iran invaded?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's stipulate that the current government of Iran is horrible and evil. Reportedly 30,000 people killed just for protesting against the government. Does that give the US -- or any other country -- a legal or moral right to attack Iran, or to try to overthrow their government, or to start a war? No, it doesn't. Not at all.
Are you being serious? There is no moral right for intervention in response to the intentional massacre of over 30k injuring over 300k civilians over the course of two days? Murdering injured protestors in hospitals, murdering and raping doctors and nurses for treating them? No moral right to stop barbaric repressions of human beings? Sigheh to 9 year old girls all totally normal.
Of course all the dark age nonsense is by no means limited to the borders of Iran. Iran is the worlds leading state sponsor
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter if there's a moral right or not. That's not why we attacked. Trump wants to be able to say he controls their oil. That's why we bombed them and why we'll invade.
In terms of conquering another country because we don't like their actions? A better option is to secretly empower their population to make the changes they want or give refuge to a sub-population fleeing them. If not, you're stuck ruling a hostile country by force who will likely fall back to exactly where they were wh
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter if there's a moral right or not.
I agree.
That's not why we attacked. Trump wants to be able to say he controls their oil. That's why we bombed them and why we'll invade.
Decoding Trump is an exercise in futility. He is a pathological liar and his statements are often not even self-consistent.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you being serious? There is no moral right for intervention in response to the intentional massacre of over 30k injuring over 300k civilians over the course of two days? Murdering injured protestors in hospitals, murdering and raping doctors and nurses for treating them?
I question your evidence for some of those atrocities, but nonetheless, some points:
1. You're making an assumption that the US has not only the right and obligation to invade another country in order to stop atrocities, but that intervention would be effective. You're assuming that intervention by the US ensures success. Recent experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya strongly indicates the opposite. Those interventions made things much worse: hundreds of thousands of people killed and millions displaced
Re: (Score:2)
I question your evidence for some of those atrocities, but nonetheless, some points:
"Despite Iran's shutting down the internet and disrupting phone service, some Iranians managed to evade restrictions to share witness accounts and hundreds of videos, many of which The New York Times was able to collect and authenticate."
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/0... [nytimes.com]
"As many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone, two senior officials of the countryâ(TM)s Ministry of Health told TIME - indicating a dramatic surge in the death toll."
https://time.com/7357 [time.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong on both a legal and moral basis.
Legally speaking, state actors have a legal obligation under International Law to both prevent and punish genocide and similar crimes against humanity. That has been true for over 70 years as a result of International Treaties created after WW2.
Please cite your sources for these claims. I haven't been able to find any such treaties.
That should make sense to anybody who is familiar with what the Nazis did during the war - clearly a law authorizing action was needed for future situations, and one was created. Perhaps you are a Holocaust Denier?
An impressive leap to a bizarre conclusion, but ultimately weak.
I believe what you're describing is called the Responsibility to Protect [un.org]. There are at least three problems with asserting the Responsibility to Protect in this instance: first, "These existing international obligations require States to refrain from and take a number of actions to prevent and punish genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes agai
Re: (Score:2)
I believe what you're describing is called the Responsibility to Protect. There are at least three problems with asserting the Responsibility to Protect in this instance: first, "These existing international obligations require States to refrain from and take a number of actions to prevent and punish genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." None of these are present in Iran. (Arguably, the attacks by the US and Israel on Iran could be considered both war crimes and crimes against humanity.)
The assertion crimes against humanity have not been promulgated by the Iranian regime is a bold faced lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it was kindness that forced the UK and USA to destroy a democracy and install a blood-thirsty dictator. It was kindness that made the USA idly watch while an Iranian dictator murdered thousands of people every year.
This is factually incoherent nonsense. The "blood-thirsty dictator" was "installed" (e.g. inherited the throne) in 1941 during WWII while Iran was occupied by the British and the Soviets. He came to power when his father abdicated and fled.
The "blood-thirsty dictator" didn't murder thousands of people every year or anything remotely like it. Over the entirety of the "blood-thirsty dictator"'s reign figures are in the low hundreds in total for the political/dissident deaths conducted by his forces.
The USA pretends to buy Israel but Israel super-enriches uranium anyway, builds nuclear weapons anyway,
The non
Re: (Score:1)
"It gets really old trying to get civilians to understand the difference between a sane leader and a fanatical terrorist."
Do you know the difference ? I don't think you do.
So Obama was the "Deporter in Chief" but at the same time, it was Open Border. Dude choose some propaganda bullshit and stick to it, don't mix them together. Beside, don't you know that Trump won "by a lot" all three last elections, how dare you say America elected Biden you traitor ?
Re: (Score:2)
,,, Israel super-enriches uranium anyway, builds nuclear weapons anyway ....
If the US gave Israel half a dozen nukes tomorrow, what do you think they would do with them other than add them to their inventory?
Now dare tell me what the fuck Iran would do with the same. To innocent civilians first.
It gets really old trying to get civilians to understand the difference between a sane leader and a fanatical terrorist.
What's your evidence for this? Have you had many hours of long and deep interviews with Iranian leaders? Can you read minds? Can you list some innocent civilians outside Iran who have been killed by Iran?
How to pay for Trumps 1.5 trillion war budget (Score:4, Funny)
The US didn't, but their friends did (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Israel has way more at stake. They're close enough for a missile to reach and small enough to be taken out by a single warhead.
Re:The US didn't, but their friends did (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel could do all these strikes in the beginning of the war for two reasons:
- it used the US ruse of "negotiations", which exposed the negotiating side
- the aircraft used in the strikes were protected by the US military
Both of these are single-use tricks, which not only won't work again, but also limit the future options of the US to conduct negotiation, because everyone will assume the US always negotiate in bad faith.
The assassinations may have been an objective victory for the corrupt apartheid government of netanyahu, which is desperate to keep power - otherwise the PM goes to jail - but other than that is a net loss, as they will make future conflicts more likely and successful negotiations to avoid military conflict less so.
As to the story of TFA, it is most likely a fake that is disseminated in an attempt to validate the long-standing and long proven absurd accusations of the lone rogue nuclear "power" in the Middle East about "imminent threat of nuclear bomb in 2 weeks", and of course the actions of the trump government, which started a war of aggression for no good reason except for "taking their oil".
The real story of assassinations and deliberate sabotage with large spillover effects to everyone come from the same rogue apartheid state, which has had no regard for law or justice for a long time now.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
why do you idiots think negotiation is some kind of ceasefire?
Why, there was no war when the negotiations began, what 'ceasefire' are you babbling about, idiot?
Did they stop bombing innocent people in 3rd countries?
You batshit crazy idiots talk like the putinists of rashistan after every successful Ukrainian strike. Were there Iranian strikes on infrastructure supporting the Israeli-trumpistan aggressors before the war of choice of donold and bibi putinyahu started?
I don't think so.
Re:The US didn't, but their friends did (Score:4, Informative)
There was no ceasefire. So why cry about one being violated?
trumptard, you're the only one babbling about ceasefires. are you retarded? why, yes, you are.
even a blind man could see the war coming
Well, it was their mistake to think the criminal family that rules the trumpistan will abide by its own laws, apparently you don't even. A gathering of oil plunderers, as you are. Like I said, it will only work once.
Maybe don't have highly enriched uranium and long range ballistic missiles?
Why not, North Korea has them and your amoeba-in-chief is always ready to suck some Kim dick.
Re: (Score:1)
A fucked-in-the-head tumpistani putin who is too much of a pussy to even write his fake pseudonym.
One of the "brave" and the "free", lol.
Why do you suck the dicks of kim, xi and putin, baby, why don't you "get their shit pushed in"?
Perhaps they made the better choices, eh?
Re:The US didn't, but their friends did (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no other reason for Iran to be bombed but the desire of the trumpistani elite to plunder.
The whole shit is about their oil, just like Iraq, Libya, Syria.
Read the last demented twat of your chieftain, dimwit, and tell me it isn't about oil.
Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Pathetic robbers, that's what you are, trumpistani.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Butthurt?
It seems your chieftain amoeba is butthurt, look at all that profanity.
And stop pretending it is about "nukes", there is literally zero evidence they have tried a nuke. And no, bibi putinyahu, the SVR agent, jerking off in front of a poorly drawn "bomb" isn't evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, spare me, one of the two that started this oil war is. And stop pretending it is about "nukes", warmonger, it is about plunder.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat that lie 100 more times, little Goebbels, see if it holds.
Your cheftain: I want to take their oil!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news... [msn.com]
This is the only reason why Iran is under attack - plunder.
Re: (Score:1)
No matter how much you want to deny it.
This is the only reason why Iran is under attack - plunder.
Maybe he's just doing it to make you cry? He can be quite petty.
still like the saying goes
Don't highly enrich uranium and also build long range ballistic missiles. FA FO
Re: (Score:2)
Keep lying, little Goebbels. But no, the war with Iran isn't about the "nukes" fantasy.
It is about plunder. From the horse's mouth:
Trump says ‘my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran’
https://thehill.com/policy/int... [thehill.com]
Sorry, that's the only available reality.
Re: The US didn't, but their friends did (Score:2)
yo, propaganda shill, are the threats of your war criminal working?
and since you know so well what happened, I presume you write from the trenches, and not the stinky basement where the online trolls factories live, eh?
lol
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it means you're full of shit.
So, how is it, have the bad Iranians given in yet? Is the complete victory announced 3 weeks ago complete now? Give us the full, true insight from the "Iranian sources", don't hold anything back.
You could even link to them, whether Yisrael Hayom, Maariv, TrufSoshul or the Babylon bee.
Re: (Score:2)
Has trump "taken the Iranian oil" yet?
No.
Then your little war of aggression isn't quite panning out.
Re: (Score:3)
even a blind man could see the war coming, nobody promised to not bomb them in fact the opposite...
Al Qaeda never promised not to attack the US. In fact, Osama bin-Laden explicitly stated his demands prior to the attacks. And yet people got very upset about it. Go figure.
It seems many people believe some kind of tribal moral philosophy, which says, "WE know WE are good, therefore anything WE do is good. And because WE are good, anyone who doesn't do what we tell them to do is EVIL, and anything THEY do is evil, and we must destroy them." That's my best guess, anyway. A few people, like Pete Hegseth, ac
Re: (Score:3)
Israel could do all these strikes in the beginning of the war for two reasons:
- it used the US ruse of "negotiations", which exposed the negotiating side .... Both of these are single-use tricks ....
Actually, it has already worked twice: once last July and again in February.
If I recall correctly, Japan made a sneak attack on the US Navy base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (a valid military target), on December 7, 1941, without a declaration of war. The US governmant and population seemed to consider this reprehensible and totally evil.
Yet when Trump does the same thing, suddenly it's okay.
which not only won't work again, but also limit the future options of the US to conduct negotiation, because everyone will assume the US always negotiate in bad faith.
One would think other countries would have learned that ere now. There are plenty of examples.
Re: (Score:2)
America probably didn't do the targeted assassination, but Israel has done and is still doing plenty! See the bombings on the Supreme Leader and friends in Iran at the start of the war.
Over the last few weeks I've seen a number of RFJ wanted fliers with millions of dollars in reward money produced by the US state department. They have a phone number and a tor address and explicitly target Mojtaba and the IRGC org chart.
"Legalistic"? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, "law-abiding". Don't use a pejorative term for what should be regarded as the norm. All administrations should strive to be law-abiding. Not saying that they will always achieve it, but it should be the default.
You've got into the habit of not making any effort to obey any rules, whether your own or international (Guantanamo for example). If you regard following such rules as "legalistic" (ie excessive), then you really are doomed.
CIA? (Score:5, Funny)
Who do they think they are, microsoft?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Rogue Terror State (Score:2)
yes, mostly due to the plundered resources that don't belong to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Are they?
This century Russia has engaged in a offensive wars against Ukraine and Georgia, put down a couple of internal rebellions and fucked around intervening in five or six conflicts in their neighbourhood and Africa.
Iran has maintained a few proxy militia groups to counter Israel.
China has... done nothing. Specifically refused to engage in any international military action. Not since Vietnam, actually.
Wikipedia's list of wars involving the US is split into multiple pages, despite the US only existing fo
How else do you fight rogue states? (Score:2)
The history of the Cold War was mostly proxy warfare. Below the knowledge of most people there was also a lot of covert actions, some of which we now know about. If the West hadn't fought in those ways, it would have lost.
The conflict with extremist Islam is presents the same problems, but has resulted in rather more direct action. Is Trump making a decent fist of the present situation? Probably not, but to suggest there is an easy, non-violent, solution is laughable.
I hate it here (Score:2)
America and Israel are such shitty countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Go join ISIS, you know you want to.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? They have the same agenda as the radical "Christians" running this country.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they're the good guys.
Re: I hate it here (Score:2)
Yes, the country formerly known as USA did develop nukes and it did use them on civilian population in order to intimidate its ally, the Soviet Union, setting the stage for the Cold War and performing two of the most heinous crimes of ww2, bar none.
So?
Re: I hate it here (Score:2)
No, you're an ignoramus who forgot the one factor that untied the hands of the USA back then - it was the sole power and it believed it unlikely that anyone could duplicate the bomb.
Until today, the restraint came from the realization this is no longer so.
But the amoeba you elected as president will probably nuke Iran after his war crimes campaign fails next week.
Re: I hate it here (Score:2)
Because he's fucking stupid. He believed his Zionist handlers who told him Iran will fold. Now that the little victorious war isn't going the way it was supposed to and there is no way out, the orange amoeba is in a fix.
So he escalates.
Eventually, he'll escalate to nuclear, simply because he's fucking stupid.
A true American, as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
What is not like I already claimed, idiot?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not going to get surprised.
The modus operandi of the trumpistani empire is plunder.
We'll see who FO in the end. Iraq, basically the same plunder attempt based on a fake story about "WMDs" was such a smashing success, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the orange shitgibbon, your idol, who wants to "take the oil", but despite burning through two hundred billion still can't manage.
What an impotent, just like his handler from the SVR, one mr. putin.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell if this is parody or not.
Re: I hate it here (Score:1)
If you think ISIS have the same agenda as radical Christians in the USA then you are a idiot. For starters they are not into slavery, which ISIS very much were/are.
Re: I hate it here (Score:2)
Who is not "into slavery", the apologists of the confederacy? LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see it now, you're a bit of a reality denialist.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, Christian nationalists do want to expand slavery.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You can't say chocolate is a shitty flavor without being explicitly for another flavor. Care to try again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ISIS are pussies.
faith... (Score:2)
Of the many scientists he approached, three-quarters ultimately agreed to cooperate.
A lot of them are dead now anyway, aren't they? Got a bomb on their head as a thank you.
The times we live in (Score:5, Insightful)