Edi you lost the high ground again.
Edi, I made an observation based upon your comments that you seem to feel that the Terrorists are the real victims and that no matter what any one may say, they are all innocent because Bush is a bad man. I did not say nor did I mean to infer in any way that you condone them and what they do. I just made an observation based upon the tone of your comments that you appear to feel that they are being treated unfairly and would rather support the cause of setting them free because it goes against Bush. That is just an observation and my own opinion. If you feel I am wrong in my observation then say so, there really is no need to make threats. If you will recall, we have covered this ground before. It would seem apparent based upon how you worded your response that you are interested in forcing your point of view at all cost rather than debating on the merits of the topic. Instead of opting to debate you chose to attack, ridicule, and threaten. This is often the case with many liberals as they know that they cannot defend the undependable so they more often than not viciously attack any who do not share their opinion or views. This makes discussion and open debate with them somewhat problematic since they often refuse to compromise and often elect to hold true to facts even when they are proven to be inaccurate. When one side refuses to be open to other points of view and opts to attack those who don't share their views, well then that is not debate Edi, that is a one sided narrow view of the topic and issues at hand and it is counter productive to an open and free forum discussion.
I would hate to think that you are attempting to scare away anyone who does not agree with you by threatening them. Without trying to offend you, I must point out that you insult but do not apologize yet threaten if an apology is not given to you when insulted. This weakens you and your position and gives casual readers the impression that you are not an open minded person willing to debate but rather a narrow minded zealot who only wishes to engage in argument, name calling, and threatening behavior. I know that you are a skilled and gifted when it comes to debate and enjoy our little back and forth with much anticipation, but even you must concede that making threats is counter productive and does more harm than good. So which is it going to be Edi, are we going to have an open minded debate, or a flame war? I would prefer you chose debate because it is far more challenging than throwing insults back and forth at each and as a rule, I won't participate in a flame war.
God only knows how much time you spent typing what can only be viewed as a manifesto regarding your point of view on this topic. You make some good arguments and I would enjoy responding to those but am fearful given the threatening nature of your last post.
You lost the high ground Edi when you started to make threats. Making an observation that you are acting as an advocate against the injustices you feel have been visited upon the Terrorists isn't calling you a terrorist. I would never deliberately insult you in that way. I hope that you know this and can take a step back and revisit my comment and take the meaning for which it was meant and not defer from it that I am calling you a terrorist.
Finally, I would rather read your responses without all the implied name calling, threats, and bad language, as I do enjoy very much our debates.
EDIT: Fixed some spelling errors.
