David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Yeah, even I want to hear about how you defend democracy by leaving
the conflict.
For more than half a year, my colleague at Diario El Tiempo and I voiced
opposition to the military junta in Ecuador by talking and writing about
the promised return to democracy. He disappeared (or was disappeared) and
I was given 24 hours to leave... the fellows in uniforms had rifles, so
there was not a "road to appeal" available.
The heroes I know, who risked life and property to defend democracy
took up arms and brought the fight to those who would challenge
democracy.
And some took up themightiest sword, the pen.

But in each case, they took the fight to the enemy. Leaving doesn't
risk, nor does it defend.


There is no risk in leaving the fight behind.

I would get a good chuckle out of finding out how you think I could have
remained, given I was escorted to the airport; the intent was to silence the
radio stations by nationalization, not to silence me personally.


How you would have stayed is not the question. You claim to have
been a defender of democracy. The question is, as a defender, how you
would risk life and property by leaving.

Changing the subject is another charming debate tactic designed to
get you out of clarifying a statement that makes no sense.

Once again, making my point for me.