Those peaceful muslims…

I guess calling it “heartbreaking” would be the slightest bit… Well credit to him…

I’m biggoted?

Pft.

Muslims target infidels in the name of Islam. Lynndie England did not target her prisoners in the name of Christ.

Surely even a bleeding heart “defend everyone but America to the bitter death” like yourself can see the difference.

And screw you for even insinuating that the US targets civilians. Frankly, if we didn’t give a damn about all the civilians in Iraq, the place would be a parking lot and an airstrip and the war would’ve been over two years ago.

If that’s the kind of shit you’re bringing, keep it on the circle-jerk that’s your own site where your lackeys pat you on the back for it.

Muslims target infidels in the name of Islam.

No, extremists target infidels in the name of their religion

Lynndie England did not target her prisoners in the name of Christ.

So did she do it in the name of what she thought was good for America? Or did she do it under some perverse personal justification of that — much like the extremists do?

Surely even a bleeding heart “defend everyone but America to the bitter death” like yourself can see the difference.

Gee, I don’t recall bashing America when NYC was attacked, I don’t even recall bashing America when they attacked Afghanistan, and I certainly don’t recall defending al-Qaeda. One but it’s not the same thing noted.

And screw you for even insinuating that the US targets civilians.

Did I do that? I thought I made a comparision.

Frankly, if we didn’t give a damn about all the civilians in Iraq, the place would be a parking lot and an airstrip and the war would’ve been over two years ago.

Great answer to the comparision – original to, I don’t recall ever seeing it before.

If that’s the kind of shit you’re bringing, keep it on the circle-jerk that’s your own site where your lackeys pat you on the back for it.

Gods forbid that I should disagree or bring up a different perspective ‘eh – I should have considered the likely response when I made this post and saved us both some bandwidth and time….. we apologise for the interruption and now return the readership to its regularily scheduled circle jerk.

Surely there’s something illogical about expecting anyone to express outrage every time someone somewhere does something immoral? People on the left generally express outrage because someone who is representing them, and of whom they feel entitled to expect better, is acting in a way they believe is immoral. If my Prime Minister does something I think wrong, I’m angry. If someone who has no connection to my country does something I think wrong, it may make me feel unhappy or regretful or upset, but unless it somehow connects back to me then I’m unlikely to feel angry about it because my expectation is that, somewhere in the world, at any time, something immoral will be happening. To be angry about it every time a specific report of it came back to me would leave me no time or energy to do anything else.

When did it become the standard that people should be angry every time something immoral happens? Well, the point is, you are calling liberals hypocrites because they are outraged by what they perceive as immoral behaviour in their own president or their own armed forces, and yet don’t get outraged when Muslim extremists do things that even worse. If I’ve misunderstood that point, let me know. The point I’m making in return is that the standard you’re applying to liberals is one that if you applied to anyone would make hypocrites of them; it’s not the standard; that’s the point.

I wonder if the idiots that post that stupid Iraq Body Count toteboard will even express the slightest bit of outrage over this?

From the standard-bearer of such sites, the text after quoting an excerpt from a different article detailing the same horrible outcome: “heartbreaking.”

I guess calling it “heartbreaking” would be the slightest bit… Well credit to him…

Where one begins with post titles like “Those peaceful muslims…” containing lines like “Targeting children…” boggles the mind.

Unless you have no issues at all with people using lines like “Catholics force Iraqi prisoners to masterbate” – Pfc. Lynndie England was Catholic wasn’t she? – or “Christians drop napalm like substances on Iraqi town” your title is not only misleading it is biggoted.

Unless you have no issues with lines like “US army targets civilian neighbourhood” during carpet bombing your “targeting children” line is little more than the promotion of that biggoted thing I mentioned.

Insurgents and/or terrorists, who are Muslin, attacked US soldiers, and civilians (including children) were killed – when your side attacks and kills civilians and children you prefer to call it something different like “unavoidable consequences” or collatoral damage to make the deaths of innocent men, women, and children, more acceptable to you… if it’s mentioned at all?

The Iraqi Body Count folks count civilians killed by the US-led coalition…. if they are idiots for not counting other civilian deaths I suppose you would agree that the US Military and Pentagon are equally the fools for not counting the civilians (and children) that they kill.

With tally card in hand to count the “but it’s not the same thing” comments, I remain

Stageleft

I’m biggoted?

Pft.

Muslims target infidels in the name of Islam. Lynndie England did not target her prisoners in the name of Christ.

Surely even a bleeding heart “defend everyone but America to the bitter death” like yourself can see the difference.

And screw you for even insinuating that the US targets civilians. Frankly, if we didn’t give a damn about all the civilians in Iraq, the place would be a parking lot and an airstrip and the war would’ve been over two years ago.

If that’s the kind of shit you’re bringing, keep it on the circle-jerk that’s your own site where your lackeys pat you on the back for it.

“If that’s the kind of shit you’re bringing, keep it on the circle-jerk that’s your own site where your lackeys pat you on the back for it. ”

Excuse me?

Muslims target infidels in the name of Islam.

No, extremists target infidels in the name of their religion

Lynndie England did not target her prisoners in the name of Christ.

So did she do it in the name of what she thought was good for America? Or did she do it under some perverse personal justification of that — much like the extremists do?

Surely even a bleeding heart “defend everyone but America to the bitter death” like yourself can see the difference.

Gee, I don’t recall bashing America when NYC was attacked, I don’t even recall bashing America when they attacked Afghanistan, and I certainly don’t recall defending al-Qaeda. One but it’s not the same thing noted.

And screw you for even insinuating that the US targets civilians.

Did I do that? I thought I made a comparision.

Frankly, if we didn’t give a damn about all the civilians in Iraq, the place would be a parking lot and an airstrip and the war would’ve been over two years ago.

Great answer to the comparision – original to, I don’t recall ever seeing it before.

If that’s the kind of shit you’re bringing, keep it on the circle-jerk that’s your own site where your lackeys pat you on the back for it.

Gods forbid that I should disagree or bring up a different perspective ‘eh – I should have considered the likely response when I made this post and saved us both some bandwidth and time….. we apologise for the interruption and now return the readership to its regularily scheduled circle jerk.

heh – would ya mind taking care of that formatting problem – it’s not supposed to be bold

Surely there’s something illogical about expecting anyone to express outrage every time someone somewhere does something immoral? People on the left generally express outrage because someone who is representing them, and of whom they feel entitled to expect better, is acting in a way they believe is immoral. If my Prime Minister does something I think wrong, I’m angry. If someone who has no connection to my country does something I think wrong, it may make me feel unhappy or regretful or upset, but unless it somehow connects back to me then I’m unlikely to feel angry about it because my expectation is that, somewhere in the world, at any time, something immoral will be happening. To be angry about it every time a specific report of it came back to me would leave me no time or energy to do anything else.

Surely there’s something illogical about expecting anyone to express outrage every time someone somewhere does something immoral?

And precisely what would that be and when did that become the standard?

Spare me.

When did it become the standard that people should be angry every time something immoral happens? Well, the point is, you are calling liberals hypocrites because they are outraged by what they perceive as immoral behaviour in their own president or their own armed forces, and yet don’t get outraged when Muslim extremists do things that even worse. If I’ve misunderstood that point, let me know. The point I’m making in return is that the standard you’re applying to liberals is one that if you applied to anyone would make hypocrites of them; it’s not the standard; that’s the point.