I merely said that if you attack us, or actively facilitate the people who attack us (since the folks we're after are not a "government"), then you are against us, and can expect a fight.

You didn't say that at all. You said this.

"When you secretly protect OBL, you basically join his side.

Which leaves NO middle road. You make no allowance for the fact that a sovereign state, such as Pakistan, does NOT have to hand over Bin Laden, since Bin Laden hasn't attacked Pakistan. You're saying that failure to hand him over makes that nation an enemy. Regardless of how you retool your original comment, you have made a statement that leaves no middle ground. Hand him over or you'll be considered an enemy.

Also, I don't want to revisit every perceived injustice through history - 99% of those have TWO sides to them anyway. We don't need to go over that laundry list to discuss OBL, drones, and the Afghan/Pakistan border.

I can understand fully why you would want to avoid answering or confronting a parallel between USA > IRA > UK, and PAKISTAN > BIN LADEN > USA, because it entirely invalidates your argument that a nation has no sovereign rights if that nation harbors a fugitive. A nation either loses sovereign rights or it does not. Except, it would seem, in the case of the United States.

America harbors plenty fugitives, members of the IRA being but one example, yet you avoid conceding that America should, according to your own argument, cede any right to national sovereignty as an effect of harboring fugitives.

Unfortunately for you I'm not going to allow you to do that.

For the record, I do not believe in American exceptionalism in any way.

And yet, here you are arguing that foreign nations who harbor fugitives from America give up the right to sovereignty, but at the same time you don't want to talk about how America should give up sovereignty when America harbors fugitives from other nations.

Also, I don't want to revisit every perceived injustice through history

Indeed, you simply want to focus on things that don't deconstruct your argument which is, despite your claim to the contrary, all about American as a special case.

Pakistan harbors Bin Lade = Give up rights to sovereignty.

America Harbors IRA terrorists = I don't want to talk about that, and indeed may even be considered nothing but a 'perceived injustice'. Though how the deaths of innocent civilians at the hands of the IRA is anything less than an actual atrocity, well, perhaps because they weren't America dead.

I suppose there's no point mentioning Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban terrorist given safe harbor in the United States, given this is merely 'revisiting a 'perceived injustice'.

No, the only actual injustice seems to occur when it involves a terrorist attack against the United States.

But, no, how on Earth could anyone accuse your argument of being based in American exceptionalism?