World News

So you started by promising to argue in good faith, and I started reading your reply with the intention of going through and responding to your points.
But then by the end you have confused me with another commenter, accused me of cheering for terrorists, being an authoritarian, advocating for terrorism, etc. Your last sentence is an unjustified ad hominem attack, and a threatening one at that. Your comment isn't even logically consistent, let alone good faith, so I don't feel like it deserves a well-thought-out reply.

Bottom line: you're apologising for fascism. You're implying that there's a consensus on where the line of intolerance for the intolerant should be drawn, and how it should be defined. You don't have the authority to tell us where/what that line is.