http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-16-voa46.cfm

<quotes>

New U.N. figures show a sharp rise in the number of civilians killed in
Afghanistan during the first eight months of this year, compared to the same
period in 2007.

The report finds the number of killings by the Taliban and other
anti-government forces almost doubled this year by comparison with the first
eight months of 2007. It says the number of civilians killed by government
and international military forces also increased substantially.

"The Taliban are believed to be responsible for exactly 800 killings or 55
percent of the total number. That is almost double the 462 deaths last year
in the same period."

"The pro-government forces are reported to have been responsible for 577
civilian deaths during this period, which is up from 477 last year, so it is
up around 20 percent or so," he added. "According to the statistics, 395
civilians of those killed by pro-government forces were killed in operations
involving air strikes. That is over two-thirds of the total number killed by
pro-government forces."

The report notes the most high-profile incidents include an air strike on a
wedding party in Nangahar province in early July that resulted in 47
civilian deaths including 30 children.

This was followed by another deadly aerial attack in August by international
forces. The so-called Shindand event is believed to have resulted in the
deaths of more than 90 civilians, including up to 62 children.

</quotes>

No Jesse, I don't expect you to condemn the deaths of the 92 innocent
children reportedly killed in just these two incidents or the numerous
innocent children and others killed elsewhere. I know you don't care and, as
you said yourself, you won't condemn the deaths of innocents.

For my part I'll condemn the deaths of innocents whether caused by the
Taliban, US forces or anyone else.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-16-voa46.cfm
> 
> <quotes>
> 
> New U.N. figures show a sharp rise in the number of civilians killed in
> Afghanistan during the first eight months of this year, compared to the same
> period in 2007.
> 
> The report finds the number of killings by the Taliban and other
> anti-government forces almost doubled this year by comparison with the first
> eight months of 2007. It says the number of civilians killed by government
> and international military forces also increased substantially.
> 
> "The Taliban are believed to be responsible for exactly 800 killings or 55
> percent of the total number. That is almost double the 462 deaths last year
> in the same period."
> 
> "The pro-government forces are reported to have been responsible for 577
> civilian deaths during this period, which is up from 477 last year, so it is
> up around 20 percent or so," he added. "According to the statistics, 395
> civilians of those killed by pro-government forces were killed in operations
> involving air strikes. That is over two-thirds of the total number killed by
> pro-government forces."
> 
> The report notes the most high-profile incidents include an air strike on a
> wedding party in Nangahar province in early July that resulted in 47
> civilian deaths including 30 children.
> 
> This was followed by another deadly aerial attack in August by international
> forces. The so-called Shindand event is believed to have resulted in the
> deaths of more than 90 civilians, including up to 62 children.
> 
> </quotes>
> 
> No Jesse, I don't expect you to condemn the deaths of the 92 innocent
> children reportedly killed in just these two incidents or the numerous
> innocent children and others killed elsewhere. I know you don't care and, as
> you said yourself, you won't condemn the deaths of innocents.

When did I ever say that "I will not condemn the deaths of innocents" ?
Better back up and do some fancy googling, I never said that.
I know what you are referring to, and I ended up just saying "fuck you" 
because you would not stop playing your childish games, as usual.
Stop pulling dollar store gremlins out of your ass, non stop.

> For my part I'll condemn the deaths of innocents whether caused by the
> Taliban, US forces or anyone else.

Ok, so then the next muslim homicide attack I will expect you to post 
your 1st ever muslim terrorist condemnation, fair enough ?

"Jesse"  wrote ...

> When did I ever say that "I will not condemn the deaths of innocents" ?

<quote>

> >>> You are explicitly saying there are deaths of innocents you won't
condemn.

> >> Yes.
> >> Aren't you going to ask who, and why ?

</quote>

When I did ask who and why you ducked the question, threw a shit fit and
stormed off in a ridiculous huff.


> Ok, so then the next muslim homicide attack I will expect you to post
> your 1st ever muslim terrorist condemnation, fair enough ?

Why would I do that ? Apart from the fact you'll simply ignore it or say
it's not sincere, whether a "muslim homicide attack" deserves condemnation
or not depends upon its full nature, just being a homicide attack does not
automatically make it legitimate for condemnation. Homicide attack is just a
battlefield tactic, who it kills is the issue. That is like asking me to
condemn the next airstrike in Afghanistan or Iraq which is patently
nonsensical and something I would also not agree to do.

I've condemned those who kill innocent people and will continue to do so,
whether they are killed by Muslim homicide attackers, US forces or by
others. You're the one who won't condemn the deaths of innocent people, not
me.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> 
>> When did I ever say that "I will not condemn the deaths of innocents" ?
> 
> <quote>
> 
>>>>> You are explicitly saying there are deaths of innocents you won't
> condemn.
> 
>>>> Yes.
>>>> Aren't you going to ask who, and why ?
> 
> </quote>
> 
> When I did ask who and why you ducked the question, threw a shit fit and
> stormed off in a ridiculous huff.

Can you answer a simple question without theatrics ?
When did I ever say that "I will not condemn the deaths of innocents" ?
Never said it, so either provide a google link of STFU.

>> Ok, so then the next muslim homicide attack I will expect you to post
>> your 1st ever muslim terrorist condemnation, fair enough ?
> 
> Why would I do that ? 

Uh lets see ,,,, Maybe because you just said, hours ago, that "For my 
part I'll condemn the deaths of innocents whether caused by the
Taliban, US forces or anyone else."
Regretting those words now ?

You truly don't know if you are coming or going.

"Jesse"  tries to dodge the bullet with ...

> The Happy Hippy wrote:
> > "Jesse"  wrote ...
> >
> >> When did I ever say that "I will not condemn the deaths of innocents" ?
> >
> > <quote>
> >
> >>>>> You are explicitly saying there are deaths of innocents you won't
> > condemn.
> >
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>> Aren't you going to ask who, and why ?
> >
> > </quote>
> >
> > When I did ask who and why you ducked the question, threw a shit fit and
> > stormed off in a ridiculous huff.
>
> Can you answer a simple question without theatrics ?

Still ducking and diving and it's quite funny when it's your failure to
answer the question, your theatrics, which are at the heart of this. So okay
Jesse, and you offered to, do tell us ... when you won't condemn the deaths
of innocent people, who and why ?


> >> Ok, so then the next muslim homicide attack I will expect you to post
> >> your 1st ever muslim terrorist condemnation, fair enough ?
> >
> > Why would I do that ?
>
> Uh lets see ,,,, Maybe because you just said, hours ago, that "For my
> part I'll condemn the deaths of innocents whether caused by the
> Taliban, US forces or anyone else."
> Regretting those words now ?

Not at all, my position remains unchanged. If "muslim homicide attack"
carried an implict "death of innocents" then yes I would condemn that but it
doesn't seem to me that there is any such implicit meaning, not even in
American usage.

"Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder,
homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal
homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts" etc
etc

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  tries to dodge the bullet with ...
> 
>> The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote ...
>>>
>>>> When did I ever say that "I will not condemn the deaths of innocents" ?
>>> <quote>
>>>
>>>>>>> You are explicitly saying there are deaths of innocents you won't
>>> condemn.
>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>> Aren't you going to ask who, and why ?
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> When I did ask who and why you ducked the question, threw a shit fit and
>>> stormed off in a ridiculous huff.
>> Can you answer a simple question without theatrics ?
> 
> Still ducking and diving and it's quite funny when it's your failure to
> answer the question, your theatrics, which are at the heart of this. So okay
> Jesse, and you offered to, do tell us ... when you won't condemn the deaths
> of innocent people, who and why ?

1 - I don't see any "us", this is "me" and "you". Your little leftist 
butt slapping crew of robin, chrissy and chatnoir aside, stop 
fantasizing that you speak for anyone but yourself.

2 - You made a specific accusation, namely, that I said that "I will not 
condemn the deaths of innocents".
As already stated, you cannot prove it, simply because I never said it.
You are making shit up as you go, when you get called out you stutter as 
usual, trying to shift focus onto anything but your most recent fuck-up.


>>>> Ok, so then the next muslim homicide attack I will expect you to post
>>>> your 1st ever muslim terrorist condemnation, fair enough ?
>>> Why would I do that ?
>> Uh lets see ,,,, Maybe because you just said, hours ago, that "For my
>> part I'll condemn the deaths of innocents whether caused by the
>> Taliban, US forces or anyone else."
>> Regretting those words now ?
> 
> Not at all, my position remains unchanged. If "muslim homicide attack"
> carried an implict "death of innocents" then yes I would condemn that but it
> doesn't seem to me that there is any such implicit meaning, not even in
> American usage.

It has changed, fundamentally.
You went from saying "For my part I'll condemn the deaths of innocents 
whether caused by the Taliban, US forces or anyone else." to applying 
pre conditions as to whether you will condemn or not, which happens to 
be what my position has been, all along.
So you will only condemn the deaths of innocents whether caused by the 
Taliban, US forces or anyone else when it suits your purposes - In other 
words, propaganda against the USA, as has been your purpose here for years.

A baby is blown up by explosives. Babies are always 100% innocent, correct ?
So are there any circumstances you can think of where blowing up a baby 
does not deserve a condemnation .. Or does blowing up a baby always 
produce an automatic condemnation ?

"Jesse"  wrote ...

> >>> When I did ask who and why you ducked the question, threw a shit fit
and
> >>> stormed off in a ridiculous huff.
> >> Can you answer a simple question without theatrics ?
> >
> > Still ducking and diving and it's quite funny when it's your failure to
> > answer the question, your theatrics, which are at the heart of this. So
okay
> > Jesse, and you offered to, do tell us ... when you won't condemn the
deaths
> > of innocent people, who and why ?
>
> 1 - I don't see any [snip]

.Still dodging the question.



> A baby is blown up by explosives. Babies are always 100% innocent, correct
?

Let's agree they are.

> So are there any circumstances you can think of where blowing up a baby
> does not deserve a condemnation ..

No.

> Or does blowing up a baby always
> produce an automatic condemnation ?

Yes.

Now tell me why you disagree with that.

I suspect we're now going to have to play the philosophical, "but what if
blowing up one innocent baby saved the lives of two other innocent babies".

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> 
>>>>> When I did ask who and why you ducked the question, threw a shit fit
> and
>>>>> stormed off in a ridiculous huff.
>>>> Can you answer a simple question without theatrics ?
>>> Still ducking and diving and it's quite funny when it's your failure to
>>> answer the question, your theatrics, which are at the heart of this. So
> okay
>>> Jesse, and you offered to, do tell us ... when you won't condemn the
> deaths
>>> of innocent people, who and why ?
>> 1 - I don't see any [snip]
> 
> .Still dodging the question.

You are plainly utterly incapable of admitting error.
You attributed an untrue statement to me [slander], and now refuse to 
even acknowledge it ?
I am not going to answer a "question" when said "question" is only a 
cheap attempt to sidetrack my own question, which was: When did I ever 
say that "I will not condemn the deaths of innocents" ?