Let the whining begin!

[Mike Cl]

As they should.
The irony here isn't that Christians will protest the killing of Christians and not atheists or homosexuals, but that atheists and homosexuals defend the culture/religion that's oppressing them.  The same goes for feminism.  It baffles me that liberals go out of their way to defend Islam when it is the very same culture that calls for their oppression and even death.  The last time I looked, all of the countries that call for the death penalty for homosexuals and/or atheists are Muslim.  All of them.  The group that attacked and killed these Christians is Muslim, presumably just because they were Christian.

This Liberal does not and has not supported Islam in any way, shape, or form.  And I support Christianity in the same manner--and every other religion in the world, past and present--and future.

[widdershins]

Extra attention?  Are you saying there should be less to make it somehow equal and fair?  If you're saying thre should be more outrage, in general, concerning Islamic oppression and terrorism, then I agree, but that's not what you imply.  It's only natural that people will protest more if their particular in-group is attacked.  The anomaly is the behavior "most" liberals portray when it comes to Islam. 

Of course I'm saying nothing of the sort.  I'm saying that when it's Christians involved it tends to get an undeservedly increased amount of attention.  There have been far bigger attacks with far larger casualties that most people have never heard of, but when one of these extremist groups so much as mentions Christianity negatively the persecution complex can last a year or more.  It's really not that complicated a thing to say that I should have to say it in this many ways.

I don't think you're being stupid about this, but I do think you're being intentionally and unnecessarily argumentative, which is a little annoying.  I'm not sure if you're trying to find a bad guy to be pissed at or just feel like arguing today, but literally everyone else here understood what I was saying the first time and here I am explaining it to you a fourth time.  I don't think you're stupid, so I have to assume you're picking a fight for some reason.  Frankly, I'm just not into it today, so if we could just move on, that would be great because the fifth explanation just isn't going to happen, man.

[Unbeliever]

Pakistan is filled with many small and large tribes ... engaged in tribal warfare.  Not amusing ... but then GB circa 1400 wasn't amusing either.

That is why...

[AllRight]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/07/secular-activist-who-criticised-islamism-hacked-to-death-in-bangladesh

[Baruch]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/07/secular-activist-who-criticised-islamism-hacked-to-death-in-bangladesh

Bangladesh used to be E Pakistan ... mystery solved.  See I figure India was lucky losing those parts of itself in 1948.