I have no idea if you'll read this as the censorship in the discussion thread seems to be heavy - nearly everything is gone by now. What you call a 'pre-existi

I have no idea if you'll read this as the censorship in the discussion thread seems to be heavy - nearly everything is gone by now. What you call a 'pre-existing agenda' is to me nothing more than the unwillingness to close (or willingness to open) my eyes for certain phenomena. In this case I'm fairly sure you triggered on me mentioning Islam as a factor in this conflict even though in your last message you seem to trigger om my mentioning one of the other parties in the conflict in this region. Not mentioning Islam is, in my opinion, analogous to closing your eyes to a significant part of the origin of this conflict. Insisting on others not mentioning Islam - or any of the other parties involved - eventually leads to the thing you purport to disdain, the rise of a 'class of people' (viz. 'class of users') who do nothing but mention the 'forbidden' subject. History is rife with examples of the rise of extremism due to the suppression of reasonable opposition. Problems don't disappear by ignoring them, wounds don't heal by merely covering them, conflicts don't get solved by gagging the debate. Doing so eventually leads to the solution found in Venezuela to solve the number of children dying due to starvation: they essentially forbade doctors to state starvation as the cause of death [1]. That is extremism, and that is where we don't want to end up. Nor do we want to end up in a situation like that in China, or in Yemen, or Turkey or any of the other places in the world being held by or falling into the hands of extremists. The only way to avoid this is by being open to viewpoints which oppose your own and by being open to discussion. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/world/americas/venezuela-children-starving.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/world/america...