I know that in the face of constant attack by the media against the breed there is a natural tendency to “close ranks”, but you cannot close ranks around the essential truth that the dog is an aggressive breed of dog, against humans or other dogs (as has been pointed out, one type of instinctive drive can easily channel into another drive) and by its build capable of inflicting serious damage.
My Bull Mastiff is an aggressive breed of dog, and capable of inflicting some VERY serious damage against either a human or a dog. They were bred to be a night watchman's companion to capture poachers (who often had dogs themselves), so I recognize that my dog is unsure if the next people or dogs we meet out on walks are neighbors we wave to or poachers who we would drive off the dogs and pin the person, often with some bites thrown in for good measure.
By recognizing this, and keeping it foremost in my mind; I avoid the potential for my usually sweet and very loving dog to attack anyone or their dog.
By trying to argue that which is demonstrably not true, you might start to believe it yourself and think that the danger is not there. But the danger is there.
I suggest you learn to distinguish between potential aggression and actual aggression.
See post 213
And no, what I'm saying is that in this case it may not have been an attack at all.
The injury may not have been the result of aggression.
See post 75