i am sorry sir but u cannot wiggle ur way out of this by simply saying my understanding is simple three points u listed are definately ithna ashariyya or twelver shia ideology.
now do u claim that this sect was in existence in the time of the Prophet ?
but since you have admitted your ignorance of various divisions between proto-shias and proto-sunnis plz first review them before coming for a "debate" I would suggest Heinz Halm's books on shiaism as a useful templete to build on ...its objective and free from anti-shia polemics
firstly shia is presently just a layman's term for the 12er sect, it does not represent them all. secondly shia being a word in Quran does not mean a thing , shia in its present term is not interchangable with its original use in the first civil war thirdly i am familiar with the exhaustive process of retrospective justifications which 12er scholars have done by presenting a revisiont view of history quite similar to what modern day nawasib have done] so u have not told me anything new.
I will tell you something and if you want to kick me out of shiasm or sunnism then let it be.
I have a firm faith that religion is between God and Man.
There is a basic goodness of Islam that only the most deviant (hint People who chop of heads etc for difference of opinion) sects have lost, but I am sure not completely. No one can take that away.
I will be judged based on my personal beliefs and practices and behavior towards fellow human beings (not just muslims) and other living beings.
I don't gives a rats ass about being labeled by people like you that I am 12er or original shia etc. I haven't seen any revisionism in what I have read. I don't trust any source, I always cross check all the references and I form my own opinions.
Logically Shia jurisprudence makes more sense to me. Trust me I have done enough legal **** in my life to evaluate the difference.
I think the revisionism started primarily in earlier days by the Ummayads dynasty to justify their rule.
I don't think Abu Bakr and Umar were pure evil. They may have done incorrect things with good intentions. Which in my personal opinion is what Umar was. An aggressive and tempramental man, prone to acting before thinking. Abu Bakr was just a bit passive and went along with Umar. I think they were just expedient.
Ummayads promoted them more to delegetimise the claim to leadership by Ahl-e-Bayt.
Muslims weren't all that amazing in the time of the prophet (saaw) either. They argued with him, they refuted him, they abandoned him and objected to his actions and decisions. There is Surah Munafaqoon as icing.
Is Karbala revisionist history? You think Imam Hussain (AS) was out to topple Yazeed. Don't you think Yazeed had animosity towards the family of the Prophet (SAAW). Look at his pedigree (or lack of it).
The biggest joke for Salafi/wahabi/ahlehadees is they think Mawiya was a good man. Hell they even think Yazeed was a good man, good enough to be labelled ra. Ask Zakir Naik and Bilal Philips and the gang.
I just ask one question, if there were rightly guided caliphs then Mawiya, Aisha, Talha and Zubair by raising a rebellion against Ali were wrong. If they were right then the concept of rightly guided caliph is flawed and lets question all of them. Guys you cannot have it both ways.
Prophet (SAAW) and his followers killed a lot of Ummayads (Mawiyas family). His grandmother Hinda ate the heart of Hazrat Hamza prophet's uncle. His Grandfather was banished from town by the Prophet (SAAW). They only accepted Islam after Mecca fell to Mulsims. Don't you see any obvious compromise situation.