When I hear about this crap I always think of the Flannery O'Conner story, A Good Man Is Hard To Find.

There are suggested alternatives to "sub-human filth" in the comments.

Me personally, I like calling them "targets".

'Similar'? Much, much worse.

Actually, to be technical about it, I doubt Australian moonbats even know who James Byrd is, let alone enough to comment unintelligently about his killers.

You're so America-centric, Ace.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

How about lower primate filth? Still sub-human, but not on the order of amoebae.

Would they prefer C.H.U.D.

Wasn't it an Australian columnist who expressed their dismay at the "insensitive" description a freed hostage attributed to his former captors?

In general, Australians are stand-up people. But when one of them goes off the reservation, they go OFF THE FREAKING RESERVATION.

I hate Flannery OConner. Depressing bitch.

Wonder if these asshats spent a single moment writing to denounce the murders and offer support for the Brits?

Anyone who pondered for more than 1/2 second about what actually happened to those innocents would have choice words for the killers too.

Hate to say it, but idiots like this are the reason we need footage of actual carnage in the news from time to time. I'm sure the reality-based community won't mind pictures of what really happens when Ahmed leaves a briefcase next to someone's Mom on the bus.

Here's the comment I posted at Mr. Gruen's site:

Perhaps we can all be forgiven for the strength of emotion in the moment. Nevertheless it seems to me that this language is odious. And it also seems to me that there is a kind of race to the bottom going on in which political leaders try to out do themselves in their language as if this proves the bona fides of their toughness.

We are facing human enemies. Its important to realise that if we want to understand them – most obviously for the practical reason that we want to defeat them.

Jesus, you FUCKING MORON. Could you possibly be more childish and vapid? I would love to see a video of you extending the hand of friendship to one of these BLOODTHIRSTY 7TH CENTURY GOAT-FUCKERS. You are apparently too incredibly stupid to realize that you would be one of the first to get your head sawed off.

But yes, of course, let’s not use odious language to describe those who willfully slaughter innocent men, women, and children. Do you not understand why those of us who have some common sense laugh at you leftist idiots?

Obviously, the second graf was supposed to be in italics, too.

Why would one assume we "want to understand them"? At least in the way implied in the question?

We already understand them: they want not only to kill us and destroy any vestige of civilization, those who survive they wish to enslave (in the traditional sense of the word) so they can spend their time thinking up ways to make everyone else's life miserable and barely worth living (actually, that sounds like the moonbats).

That, in fact, is all we need to know about them.

Anyone in sympathy with their aims, either by direct support or by the support of silence, should be treated equally at fault as the islamofascists.

The calls for understanding are always restricted to the West's understanding of Islam, rather than asking for similar efforts on the part of Muslems. The left's pleas for more empathy and understanding stem from the patronizing attitude that infects most of their discourse. Since their superior insight and virtue has allowed them to cope so "successfully" with poverty, crime, racism, and education, they believe that these same tools (combined with a minor amount of police work) will suffice to defuse the threat of radical Islam.

In surveying the situation from their elite vantage point, they find that the only impediment to solving the terrorism problem lies in the atavistic attitude of the Red States and the Bush administration. The thought that the accumulated experiences of the last two decades might lend legitimacy to opposing positions is anathema - the opposing positions must be derived from racism, economic self-interest, religious intolerance, and/or imperialism.

Giving any credence to the interpretations or motivations of the Right would undermine the title of superiority they have bestowed upon themselves - the title that is inherent to their argument. If they cannot claim the moral and intellectual high ground, they cannot offer valid contributions to the international discussion of terrorism. Hence their demonization of the Right and rejection of the inconvenient fact.

Given all of the effort those of the left have expended in "finding themselves" and nuturing the "inner me," it seems vastly ironic that they have completely lost the desire and talent for critical introspection.

...or we could just hand 'em knapsacks with bombs in and send 'em off to parley