Sox Fan. Your post started out:
And if you were wrong? That enraged group was misinterpreted by you and because of your lack of understanding of their culture, or the meaning of their words you took it to mean - they wanted to kill when they really didn't?
1. I am wrong in many things, but not in this instance.
2. The enraged group is not misinterpreted by me. Anyone that threatens by words and actions cannot be misinterpreted.
3 I have no lack of understanding (and more important) of knowledge of their culture, history of stupidity. Yes, stupidity. We can argue about whether some are less stupid than others, but we are talking about an "enraged group" who is threatening by word and action to kill others that they don't even know.
The rest of your exercise will not be commented on. Your response was not thought out carefully, but, rather you attempted "to 'take out' the other side without talking to them."
The "them" in this instance was me. If you care to talk about this privately, please PM me, or give me your phone number, and I will gladly call you up and we can discuss "terrorism" in detail.
Louis L'Amour wrote fictional accounts based on his life and reality. His characters always lived out the code "Shoot first, and ask questions later." This was always after the bad guy revealed his intentions. Not a bad way to live.
ss
"If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end." ~ Abraham Lincoln
