When you call something a 'walk in the park' you deserve and should expect that to be disputed, your defense is bringing up subjects I do not dispute and did not raise, I am very well aware of Colonial atrocities and American atrocities, I am not in the habit of declaring one atrocity irrelevant because another was worse, or was the Srebrenica Massacre a 'walk in the park' because WWII was worse?

Considering your own recent reaction to 'blood libel' I find your casual use of 'walk in the park' and accusatory defense of it rather surprising. I have not at any point claimed the US was clean-handed or suffered abnormally rough treatment compared to others, I also can not fathom why you think abusing and murdering prisoners who served as soldiers is somehow different then doing that to anyone else. Killing someone on the battlefield or even roughing up enemy soldiers right after the event is a whole different story than brutalizing them in controlled and prolonged captivity. There is a reason Americans and Filipins were pissed of about the Bataan Death March.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, mine, if you choose to look back, was simply "British Colonialism wasn't a walk in the park... You maybe forgotten or are unaware of the British Prison Ships like the HMS Jersey?" Considering you have said you were unaware, this would seem to boil down to you feeling walk in the park is okay language, and it is, if you are trying to make some point on relative suffering, I think that gap is way smaller than you do and I find your choice of words very poor.