How about you provide your sources in response to a recent situation in which you made a
highly untenable, and also quite provocative assertion -- yet, when asked to provide sources in a
perfectly polite and unassuming manner (very much unlike your own formulation in this case, which was full of innuendo and sarcasm from the get-go) -- you simply bailed:
You may not like it, but the USA has called for Irans' destruction a hundred times.
And then perhaps we'll talk.
Note please the special emphasis on "the USA", meaning an official, governmental statement or policy (not just the throwaway pronouncements of 1 or 2 of its windbag politicians). And the number "a hundred", as in, you know, 10x10, or heck, any number of roughly similar magnitude.
Being as these were, after all, the words you chose to use for some reason.
Perhaps, I care too much.
Thats great, and I'm sure you're a great person too, on the whole. I've actually upvoted a lot of your other postings (there was one in particular about "catharsis" that I stumbled on while searching for something else, which seemed right on the money and which I really liked).
It's just that, given various indications -- such as the blatant exaggeration followed by blatant evasiveness highlighted above, and the weirdly propagandistic phrasing you seem to like to use to a conspicuous degree -- I'm just not sure that, in regard to geopolitics at least, this whole factual accuracy thing is really your "bag".