I must admit, the mild outrageousness at the mere fact that Ranger dared to say something as plainly as he did was so satisfactory to witness I wouldn't want to dissuade Ranger from posting like that for anything. Threatening people with violence is of course something you simply do not do, but I think the question this time is how far you will need to go to provoke any reaction. I mean, when it comes to a certain issue, we're more often than not discussing how a "pre- chewn" truth is more pleasing to believe than something actually possible to sustain with more than "popular" or dictated sentiments. Rather than the issue as such. In media this happens frequently when people polite themselves to death - "Yes, I can see how it is a valid viewpoint to want to kill off the opposition groups not acting in concert with our country's administrative whims. But do you not see how this might be seen as very impolite to the populace and work against the political goals we have set?". If the interviewer lost his head, probably. Whereupon the responsible figure assure everyone that they're working for freedom and democracy, and that they of course do not "kill off the opposition", but always deal with terrorists. It's this informationless prattle that perhaps should provoke some "plain language", at least demand a small reaction, and not simply silence or a lame "we'll wait and see" - or "I'd like to keep an open mind about it", perhaps until the administration sees fit to commit suicide on the CNN.

So how far would one need to go to get the point across? Apparently, if this leads to a debate where participants agree that they should discuss the issue rather than deflect it and complain about personal attacks when someone finally snap, Ranger truly went exactly as far as needed.
Hm. There are ways to politely tell people to go fuck themselves after all, then. But you're right. Resorting to personal attacks and violence is something you would do when you've ran out of arguments that can touch the opponent's opionions.