It would seem that if a person can only denounce atrocities on one side of a conflict, then the purpose is political rather than moral or humanitarian.
This kind of bias automatically puts them in the ludicrous position of supporting their favored side, and by extension protecting the various atrocities committed by that side.
Right wing fundies that totally deny this kind of war crime exists (even in Geneva convention adherants who denounce such things) are nuts.
Left wing fundies that harp on such stories for political agenda but support terrorist activity (and indeed cannot even call the Hezbolla or AlQueda terrorists) are also nuts.
War crimes happen in wars. The US army does not encourage its soldiers to do these things. They prosecute them as crimes.
Islamic fundamentalism lives, breathes, and eats by virtue of constant war crimes against civilians.
That is why I asked earlier, "what exactly is the purpose of this thread"?
So, again - is the thread a political statement or is it a balanced and proportionate criticism of war crimes on both sides of the conflict against terrorism?
Sincerely, James