Yes, because they committed the heinous crime of being born in the Middle East, which by the way is something they have no control over.

It's okay if it happens in war.

It's a matter of entering a discussion in good faith. As i already said, i don't know much about the situation over there, but many don't seem to think the US government is actively aiming to kill innocents. Innocents have died in effectively ever major war ever fraught, yet i expect most can think of at least a few in which they think one side or another was justified. Whose right here? I have no idea. What i do know is that if you want to have a constrictive discussion, skipping to 'my opponents are murder supporting monsters' isn't useful. Wording is important when dealing with delicate topics, as it sets the tone for the rest of the discussion.

For western people there are 1st grade people. Frome USA and Western Europe. Where every life is important. 2nd grade like china/japan/russia/east europe, which is like well, they go on two feet and speak, wow. And 3rd grade, which are from Africa/arab cohntries and so on.

So huge terroristic act is 2 europeans killed. Or 50 russians. Or 2-3 thousands arabs, who cares.

Western society is still deeply racist abd xenophobic inside. Its clearly seen here or in comments to bbc/cnn/nyt.

Yeah, but that is what it is. Being born in certain parts of the world, in certain cultures often also comes with baggage, such as negative opinions about gays, sexist ideals, feelings (and laws) of religious supremacy and more. So although they're people, they're not people that I want to defend. A casualty in the west is worse than a casualty over there and so I'd prefer the war to be fought there, than it be fought here. Humanizing those people doesn't help us win the war.

OK, so is Hitlers life equal to Ghandhis? 

That's the media spin. Assad allegedly uses chemical weapons because they can't definitively support it. Some sources that are not sold out like the western media say its actually the rebels not Assad using the chemical weapons. That is my position. I don't knwo whether Assad used it or the rebels but I am not going to believe the lies that the west spews out. Remember how the USA said there were WMDs in Iraq. Where were they? Its the same situation with the USA making stuff up. Now I am not saying that that's what happened but it is more likely in my opinion that the rebels were the ones using the chemical weapons with the backing of USA

Seems you don't see ISIS as a real enemy or threat. Which sort of makes your whole post a whine about something you don't understand. We are trying to iradicate ISIS from the planet. ISIS choses where they operate from. They purposely either gather around civilians or try to hide amongst them. If the Syrian people[or Iraqi, or other places ISIS is] would stand up and fight them, the US and UN/world wouldn't have to do the work. But as you see from video, the refugees are loaded with fighting age men who are leaving instead of fighting for their cities/countries against an invading enemy. In the next decade it will be a even bigger problem when countries like the US stop buying oil from the ME because they are making their own energy more and more. The ME will become a poor 3rd world area with a handful of rich Kings amongst millions of have nothing but sand to eat. Then ISIS will just take over the whole area. They have to be killed NOW.

Do you not agree that Islamic terrorists believing that non-Muslim lives are unimportant and dispensible compared to Muslims is a bad thing? If so, you're being hypocriticial as advocating in essence the exact same thing.

Uhh, they already do that. The SAA and the Kurds are composed of Muslims, and they're the ones mainly fighting ISIS.