My point was not directed at you in particular, though your 22 Jun 04 - 10:22 PM post is an example of that thinking I disagree with.

All the other points you have repeated, 'animals' etc., I find nothing wrong with from my point of view.

My post of 22 Jun 04 - 10:22 PM, was (in a round about sort of way, I suppose), a way of introducing the points I was making in all of my subsequent posts. They are all the same points, just expressed in different ways.

And vice versa, Carol. But I know you would agree with that.

I can't imagine why you would think any differently.

BTW, when assessing what you think other people's biases are, I think it would be a prudent thing to factor in who started the thread being posted to, and what their original point was. For instance this thread was started by someone who appears to be equivocating on the subject of wrongdoings on the part of the US, and pointing fingers only at one group of people. So it is perfectly natural in terms of the flow of thread discussions, for people to respond to those particular points. The fact that they do so is not, necessarily, indicative of bias.

The first posts says, in essence, that the US is justified in using whatever tactics it wants because the people on the other side are using tactics we don't like. Some of the others in this thread, myself included, are saying we don't agree with this premise. It is not at all logical to infer from our disagreement with this premise, that we agree with the tactics used by the other side. That is a non-sequiter and it has no basis in logic.