Why is everyone outraged over this woman beheading a child, when...

username1204031

...nobody is outraged that Russia has killed 200 kids since they started bombing Syria? The hypocrisy is absolutely disgusting.

Once again, people are pretending to care, but they're really just trying to push their political views. 200 kids bombed by Russia, nobody even notices. But a Muslim kills one kid, and the world is in ****ing uproar.

Of course the radical kippers will be crawling out of the woodwork to accuse me of not caring about this poor child being beheaded. But no, I care deeply, and it shouldn't have happened. I also care about the Syrians being massacred.

The people who really don't care are the xenophobes using this child's death to gain support for their hate campaign. Truly disgusting behaviour, you people should be ashamed.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

username2228735

Military vs. Civilian. Jolly good comparison.

Reply 2

username1204031

Original post by Aceadria

Military vs. Civilian. Jolly good comparison.

So it's okay for the military to massacre 200 kids? What???????????????????????????????????????????

Reply 3

donutellme

Original post by Aceadria

Military vs. Civilian. Jolly good comparison.

So the military has all the rights in the world to kill civilians?

The woman should be tried for murder. Nothing more.

Reply 4

username2228735

Original post by JordanL_

So it's okay for the military to massacre 200 kids? What???????????????????????????????????????????

Think about what you wrote and try again. Is that really what I said?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 5

username1204031

Original post by Aceadria

Think about what you wrote and try again. Is that really what I wrote?

It's the implication of what you wrote, yes.

Reply 6

username2228735

Original post by donutellme

So the military has all the rights in the world to kill civilians?

The woman should be tried for murder. Nothing more.

I'll refer you to my previous post.

Reply 7

FriendlyPenguin

Civilian casualties of a military kind, for political reasons =/= nanny beheading child in her care, in a non-warzone, for religious reasons

Reply 8

username2228735

Original post by JordanL_

It's the implication of what you wrote, yes.

Not at all. You just simply assumed something and are arguing against something I did not state. I'm sure you can google what that is referred to.

Reply 9

username1204031

Original post by Mathemagicien

Civilian casualties of a military kind =/= nanny beheading child in her care, in a non-warzone

So it's okay for the military representing an entire country to deliberately target civilians, but when one woman kills someone it's abhorrent and reflects poorly on all Muslims?

Reply 10

donutellme

Original post by Aceadria

I'll refer you to my previous post.

Fair enough. They are 2 very separate issues.

Not acceptable to have so many civilian casualties. Not acceptable to lop of childrens' heads.

Reply 11

username2228735

Original post by donutellme

Fair enough. They are 2 very separate issues.

Not acceptable to have so many civilian casualties. Not acceptable to lop of childrens' heads.

Precisely. Not excusing either but the OP's comparison is irrelevant in this case.

Reply 12

username1204031

Original post by Aceadria

Precisely. Not excusing either but the OP's comparison is irrelevant in this case.

No, it's really not. If the British or the US military were deliberately targeting civilians there'd be hell on (or maybe not, because people really don't seem to care). I don't understand why military casualties are somehow less tragic?