Slashdot Mirror

You're a hypocrite. Do you have the same qualms with Google using U.S. propagada outfit Voice of America as a news source? Even though Büsh's Amerikkka has murdered at least 64,000 Iraqis? The US is a much greater threat to peace than China ever has been. Nobody outside of the U.S. disputes this.

Well, FDR had more.

According to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ the current max number of Iraqis is 57,707 not 600,000. Using your numbers the most violent president in the US, FDR, killed more than 20,000,000.

Counting all the innocent Muslims killed in the US and around the world since 9/11, well that would be a bit trickier.

But hey, they hate you for your freedom, ain't that right.

And who kills the innocent Americans, exactly? I'd really like to know.

You ask.

My guess it primarly one of two groups.

• People who are unhappy being invaded and occupied.
• People who are taking revenge for the significally larger number of innocent iraqies killed.

How many deaths were there on 911? 4000? There are already, on the low end, between 43,000 and 48,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in Iraq.

What percentage of those civilian casualties will result in a very upset Iraqi who hates America? 5%? 10%? 30%? What percentage of those America-haters has decided, or will decide, to get revenge? This is already a mess and is something that we will now have to deal with for decades. Thanks Bush!

Setting a good example to others? No way. Threats to nuke Iran if they continue their nuclear programme seem very hypocritical. Their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were so badly organised the US probably killed more innocent citizens than the terrorists did in 11/09/2001 and 7/7/2005 combined.

You're kidding right? There's no probably about it. Check the numbers on http://www.iraqbodycount.net/. That's excluding the ~2000 allied servicemen who've died.

Death toll for 11/9 and 7/7 combined was less than 4000. So far, the US and their allies have killed TEN TIMES THAT MANY CIVILIANS in Iraq alone. That doesn't count dead innocents in Afghanistan.

And this is why this war will not reduce terrorism, but instead will produce more terrorists. There are 40000 + dead people with friends, families and orphans out there. How much do you think they love they US? How easy do you think it would be to brainwash these vulnerable victims into committing suicide in retaliation attacks?

Doh!

Watching the US military slaughter at least 43525 muslim civlians in the pointless invasion of Iraq changes you. Especially if you're a muslim. So if you were afraid of muslims before, turn your fear up a notch, and congratulate your leaders on a nice job making the worst of a bad situation.

but we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties and avoid use of excessive force.

Rally? this site says between 40,000 and 45,000 people's relatives would disagree with you if every given the chance.

And if you're talking historically, the only country to use a nuke in war was the US, and they targetted civiallians with it,

You guys aren't the good guys; you're not even the better guys,

Vote rigging?

Fortunately, every time I've read about dead people, convicted felons or illegal immigrants voting

And no i'm not saying they were mistreated in their childhood poor them we must 'understand' them, it wasn't their fault. Murder is murder is murder but that swings both ways (be it state sponsored individual or a 'terrorist' organization)

The only way to prevent people from taking up arms against you is to not give them a reason to do so. Try spending the hundreds of billions a year we spend on war on elimination of hunger on creation of jobs and on propping up democratic institutions (encouraging checks and balances in other countries and the like) and watch the difference it can make.

Violence begets violence and we're the only ones with the means to break the cycle

it's statistically safer being an Iraqi civilian than a Washington DC resident.

I was surprised and skeptical to read this. With good cause, it would seem:

Population of Iraq: 28,807,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq)
Population of Washington DC: 563, 384 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_dc
Estimated civilian deaths, Iraq conflict: 41,054* (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)
Homicide count, 2005, Washington DC: 195 (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,543308, mpdcNav_GID,1523,mpdcNav,%7C.asp)
Death ratio, Iraq: 41,054 / 28,807,000 = 0.14%
Death ratio, Washington DC: 195 / 563,384 = 0.03%

In other words, you are NOT safer as an Iraqi civilian than as a DC resident. You're FIVE times more likely to die as a result of the war as you are from homicide. I used homicide as a parallel for death due to war as a civilian casualty. Yes it's not perfect, but if you have a better metric, I'd be happy to compare.

* Median of min/max estimates as supplied.

You forgot the thousand of innocents dead http://www.iraqbodycount.net/. Way to go Dub!

Some stats on Iraqi's living in fear:

Rough numbers from http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ indicate (using the maximum numbers, and considering the time period to be three years when it's really more like 3.5) put the death rate at 48.6 per 100,000 per year.

From http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ (eh, it looks legit enough), the murder rate in the United states in 2005 was 5.5 per 100,000. In Washington DC in 2000 (the last year there was data for on that site), the rate was 41.7 per 100,000. In 1997, the rate in DC was 56.8 per 100,000. That's higher than in the "Civil war" state of Iraq. So in reality, Iraqis should feel _more_ safe than people who lived in the Capital of the Free World in 1997, and about as safe as people who live in DC today.

Wow. Nice hyperbole. Milions of Iraqis have died? The anti-war "Iraq Body Count" has 42434 last time I looked.

Although, what I don't understand, is the idea the people are coming from other countries to 'liberate Iraq from the invaders' when, if they would stop it, the allied forces would leave sooner.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ = a whole lot of accidents.

I know how the Air Force plans bombing runs. The Law of Armed Conflict requires that commanders balance military necessity against unnecessary civilian suffering. Some suffering is considered to be unavoidable, and the commander has to determine whether the suffering that will or may be caused is worth the military value of destroying the target. Now, it's good that we actually worry about that. I'm very happy that we try to balance civilian suffering with military necessity. That's a great thing. Sets us apart from the monsters in the world. It's how I'm able to sleep at night. But there are times when a commander says "Well, we'll probably kill some innocent civilians in the process, but in the end the military value justifies their loss." and that's a fact. When you're like me and you consider the Iraq war to have been unnecessary, you consider all the civilian suffering (and for that matter, the military suffering because getting shredded by an IED is no picnic) to be unnecessary and a tragedy caused by short-sighted selfish fanatical people. On both sides of the conflict.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/12/12/iraq6582.ht m/
In a single day, U.S. cluster-munition attacks in Hilla on March 31 killed at least 33 civilians and injured 109. A hospital director in the southern Iraqi city told Human Rights Watch that cluster munitions caused 90 percent of the civilian injuries that his hospital treated during the war. Human Rights Watch obtained hospital records from Hilla, Najaf and Nasariya indicating 2,279 civilian casualties in March and April, including 678 dead and 1,601 injured.

That's a whole lot of whoops. Like "Whoops, I blew your house and kids up. But hey, enjoy the sweet taste of freedom. By yourself."

Cute but wrong numbers. First off, the 100,000 number is flat out wrong. Even less then objective sources put the number at no more 38,000 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/). Official numbers put them even lower. Of those 38,000, the actual number that were civilians is unknown, but 80% is clearly an massive overshoot. I don't think we even managed pull off 80% civilian casualties when we firebombed cities during World War II.

As for death squads, those are not US security. If you think a bunch of pasty ass white guys or black guys from the US are running around Iraq undetected killing off civilians, you are simply delusional. We kind of stick out a little. Even if we manage to blend in, the second anyone opens their mouth it is pretty clear they don't speak the regional accent of Arabic. Further, even if we could operate covert death squads, they wouldn't be hunting down random civilians. People disappearing in the night HURTS the US. We want the damn place to be a merrily little economic power house like Japan. Economic growth and people vanishing at night are pretty mutually exclusive. It would be a pretty retarded move to work against our own interests.

There are some credible reports of death squads in Iraq though. These death squads are generally militia (either Sunni or Shiite). There are even some reports of Iraqi army units acting as death squads.

How many of those are part of the US puppet government (nobody really believes that our government invades one strategic target after another to "spread freedom" I hope) and its security force. These individuals can all be safely considered traitors to natives who want a free Iraq.

As for who is getting hurt in the suicide attacks, do some fucking research before opening your ignorant mouth. Go to google news and type in "iraq mosque bombing". Unless all Shiites (women and children) are "traitors" because they are paying in a Shiite mosque, it is pretty clear that you have an ethnic/religious conflict going on.

CNN's 1999 article on murder rates put a New York City all-time high of 2,262 murders in 1990. In 1997, the USA murder rate was 18,209 murders for the year nationwide.

I'm surprised we have to argue the definition of catastrophe. Iraqi bloggers are saying how Baghdad has only a few hours of electricity a day and that there's an actual gas shortage due to guerilla attacks. Iyad Allawi, the pro-American former appointed PM, has declared it's a civil war, and cited the dozens of bodies turning up every morning with execution-style killings. The US has uncovered Ministry of the Interior secret prisons and torture rooms by the new Iraqi government, and Sunni and Shi'ite death squads are picking off both sides. It's bad.

I don't like this trend at all.

The more money we have to pay and the more lives we have to put at stake in order to go to war, the less likely it is that we actually do go to war.

The only way that war becomes "fair" is if both sides incur the same 'cost' of the war (monetary, soldier deaths, civilian deaths, etc.). If 33,773 American soldiers or civillians died because of our involvement there, we'd be pulling our troops out as fast as we possibly could.

With this, we're spending less money and putting fewer lives at risk to kill a proportionally higher number of foreign militants. At what point does war become a targeted genocide? We're putting our enemies in a position where their only method of directing their anger twoard us is by targeting civillians in suicide attacks. This scares the hell out of me.

Little known fact:

There actually is no one at Microsoft named Allchin. That's just a nickname for Jabba the Hutt, All Chin. Mr. J. the H. is in charge of designing Microsoft's relationship with customers. To Mr. Hutt, customers are just another kind of cute squeaky animal.

Ok, maybe that's not exactly a fact.

Seriously, it seems to me that what's happening at Microsoft is a general social breakdown. The comments to Who da'Punk's blog seem to me to show a widespread dislike of Microsoft, and a lack of positive feelings.

It's entirely predictable that any company that abuses customers like Microsoft does (by releasing sloppy, unfinished code, and tricking customers in other ways), will sooner or later suffer a social breakdown.

Microsoft's business model has largely depended on taking advantage of the ignorance of customers. Now that the customers are becoming more technically knowledgeable, Microsoft is finding it difficult to continue.

There are many other social breakdowns in the United States. They may seem unrelated, but they are connected by a fundamental theme: Abusiveness toward people.

The U.S. government is undergoing a social breakdown. Yes, killing Iraqis is abusing them. No, Iraqis are not proud to be killed by such superior people as the leaders of the U.S. government.

The bankruptcy of Enron was a social breakdown.

--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?

> Likewise, it is easy for the "Terrorist" to say those were innocent civilians,
> not "Terrorist". Who do you want to believe?

On the evidence of past behaviour, not the president of the US.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

37,000+ dead terrorists? Really?

This is insightful? I'd call it a troll. No where in this article was the War in Iraq mentioned, but you thought to bring it up anyway. That, my friend, is the definition of troll (or at least OT).

There is nothing troll'ish about that. The statements illustrate how mixed up peoples sensibilities are. It's not ok to portray young people fucking each other, but it is ok to send young people to a war to kill other innocent young people. A war I might add, which was not just. The biggest threats came from a Saudi.

Not true. We have actual videotape of Saddam saying, "while a country could not attack the US with bio weapons, an individual could, provided they were given the weapons.

Oh you mean a non threatening statement of fact which anybody could have made?

As opposed the the millions of men, women and children that died as a result of us not going in there earlier. (UNICEF's numbers, not mine)

Ah yes of course and of all those who died as a result of inhumane sanctions against innocent Iraqi's? And do you really think bombing and shooting tens of thousands of civilians is an appropriate cost of removing a dictator and regime? You did not have the backing of the UN. You participated in an illegal war which has NOT found WMD's and has NOT stopped terrorism there. You did manage to anger lots more people around the World however.

When I signed up to serve, I knew this was a real possibility. I was ready to die for my country. These patriotic young US men and women knew this as well.

Die for your country? You Americans are amazing. You'll travel around the World to fight and die in the name of democracy, yet a great big chunk of you won't leave the house and cross the road to vote in a democratic election and then half of what remains choose to re-elect a moronic, deserting liar to lead your so called "home of the brave, land of the free", once again. You would not have died for your country, you would have died for a pack of lies. THE FACT REMAINS, that WMD's and a danger to America were stated to be the reason for going in to Iraq and yet to this day they HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND and add to that that the politians who were trumpeting that bullshit are now saying that they either did not say it (INCREDIBLE!) or that the intel was wrong.

There are plenty of parents and surviving soldiers who do not share your view. Remember, "serving your country" does should NOT mean "serving your government", it should mean "serving for the good of all of Americans". Killing lots of innocent people in another land, due to some really flimsy "evidence", is not good for Americans. With all the hipocritical and damning news that has come out of Iraq, including torcher, murder and rape, all the US has done is make themselves are much more hated and bigger target from a LOT more people who might be willing, like you, to give their lives fighting against an aggresive enemy.

Iraqi's will suffer much more over this war and for a very long time to come because of this massive instability caused by that WMD himself GWB. Look at Palestine and Israel. How long have they been at each others throats over differing beliefs of religion and ownership. Iraq will not suddenly just come good. Much suffering is yet to come.

So how many of these can you proudly and patriotically claim as your own handy work?

Meanwhile in many sections of Iraq, people have their first clean water...

From Wikipedia: "Although the water supply has reached prewar levels in some provinces, ageing and poorly maintained equipment combined with looting and vandalism leaves the drinking water system substandard."

their first reliable electricity...

From the GAO: "However, electrical service in the country as a whole has not shown a marked improvement over the immediate postwar levels of May 2003 and has worsened in some governorates." Not only is electrical service worse than during Saddam's rule, it's even worse than after much of their electrical capacity was destroyed DURING the war.

their first real sewer system, ever...

From Wikipedia (same link as before): "Untreated waste is polluting the Euphrates River, and many treatment plants require repair. More than 45 pipelines have exploded"

Hundreds of schools, dozens of hospitals exist where no service was available for at least 20 years

Right. And they're built to inferior standards, and you can't go to them in any case without risking death. I don't need to provide a link, you can see the story every day on CNN.

So, by a conservative estimate, the regime was killing civilians at an average rate of at least 16,000 a year between 1979 and March 2003."

From Iraqi Body Count: estimates range from 28 - 32K deaths just from coalition military activity since the start of the war. Other estimates, some of which include deaths from lawlessness and terrorist activity, are much higher, ranging up to a quarter of a million.

Way to distort the facts. Maybe you should try getting your news from somewhere other than the Weekly Standard.

Sean

I want the government to sift through all publicly available information to find people planning or engaged in activities which would cause me or another 2,966 of my countrymen to be deprived of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Look to the oval office for the conspirators, then.

From this report: "At least 2,289 service members have died since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count."

See also this page, which shows that the estimated Iraqi body count is 10 times higher than the deaths we experienced that were caused by other agents acting through another sovereign nation to do their killing (in other words, Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC towers falling, which was the inital reason given for the US invading).

Even a website called "Iraq Body Count" isn't as, er, optimistic as you are about civilian casualties.

Your final comment really made me wince:

If the media coverage was war, the good guys would be getting slaughtered.

Between 28000 and 32000 Iraqi civilians killed.

And as for the wanton destruction and looting of priceless antiquities - well the USA does have a reputation to maintain of being total philistines

2,000 people is nothing. These are young people that have volunteered to do such a job, and are willing to die fo what they believe in be it right or wrong. I've talked with a Marine truck driver that was proud that his group of people were of the highest death rate due to reconicence of dead vehicles.

103,000 people die annually at work each year http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/pr/20 05/36.htm

So, the military is not a very bad choice of a hazardous job. Especially compared to policemen, cab drivers, and watermen.

Now, being that the poor Iraqis that we "liberated" from the evils of Saddam, they are much worse off. Gas there has gone up something like 8 fold. Electricity and food are issues. For the first time in over 100 years their deathrate has exceeded their birthrate. Their children then have birth defects due to using fun toys like armor piercing rockets that have depleted uranium (aka, gulf war sickness here in the US). They have lost on order of 30,000 people directly by being killed http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

I don' think your anymore of an argumentative dick than I am, but you just have much fewer data.

And I can think of 30,000 or so people who might agree with it, if they could. Your point?

I have PLENTY of experience with Windows being unreliable.

If you are using Windows XP, just re-load the operating system over the old system, and that will very likely fix everything. Boot from the Windows XP CD. Important: Skip the first "Repair" chance. The second is what you want.

Another phrase for the business strategy of an unreliable mainstream operating system is "maximizing shareholder value". Many people who begin to have trouble simply buy another computer, and Microsoft makes more money, since Microsoft makes them buy the OS again.

--
Who has killed more Iraqis? Saddam or Bush?

This is scary because it is intended as just a first step, and because the present administration of the U.S. government sells government policy to the highest bidder.

--
Who has killed more Iraqis? Saddam or Bush?

Gamers! Stop playing games and move up to the real world! Enlist in the U.S. Army and kill real people in Iraq.

There are McDonald's in Brazil, but people are happy, and not fat, and not depressed.

"... much of American violence is contained within inner cities and is perpetuated by criminals on each other."

Much of American violence is killing Iraqi civilians. If you are a citizen of the U.S., you pay for this, and, if you don't protest, share in it.

"This war has killed more Iraqi civilians than have ever been in mass graves."

are you joking!!!?? last i checked the iraq body count (which is hardly a pro war site) had a max of 30,318 the mass graves have had over 300 000 and those are are only those discovered so far. We are talking about an order of magnitude more. I know it is cool to bash the war, but making up numbers does not help your case.

Is it sliming when I say the U.S. president lied about WMD

When did he lie about WMD?

This is a reasonably comprehensive recap of the statements made by Bush and his administration concerning WMD in Iraq.

When a credible organization in Iraq can present nuclear weapon quantities of uranium, or working uranium enrichment facilities, or chemical weapon stocks, I'll retract the accusation Bush lied about WMD.

responsible for all the civilians being slaughtered there

So Bush is responsible for loading people up with explosive and having them walking into restaurants and then blowing themselves up?

Given that the execution of the Iraq occupation was botched, and generated the conditions to allow the insurgency to operate so effectively in Iraq, yes, I think the coalition invaders are culpable for civilian casualties caused by the insurgents. If there were enough troops to counteract insurgent guerillas and interdict support from Iran, if there was a credible plan to withdraw from Iraq, if the Bush administration could stick to one administering one election to determine the civilian gov't, and let the elected sovereign nation determine its constitution, this site could not talk about the 27,000+ noncombatants estimated to have died in Iraq, so far. If one limits the accusations to what the US military has done to civilians, it drops to only 9,000 civilians. But that wouldn't count the Iraqis people who died of starvation, dehydration, heat stroke, or disease.

Or that Americans are no better than the Sunnis that ran Abu Graib?

well except for the US arrested thoses that did anything of that nature,

Ahh, but what about the military commanders that were responsible for supervising their subordinates? Please cite one commissioned officer who has been courtmartialed the way the enlistees have been convicted.

and even what they did was not close to standard practive when the sadam ran the place.

Well, people do seem to think child molesters aren't as bad as murderers. I can see your rationale. (Its amusing how the Dittoheads leap to support my arguments.)

"America, fuck you you murdering scumbags, you ain't gonna mess with root TLDs".

Sorry, nothing personal mate, but it had to be said. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I don't recall China or Iran killing 30,000 innocent people over the past two years. I missed that memo apparently.

includes the idea that the US abuses its position as far as assigning root level domains.

Where are all the *.iq sites? We don't trust you not to do such a thing. You've just illegally occupied a country and are now holding clown courts that aren't recognized by any international law. Given that, dicking around with DNS isn't looking all that unlikely now, is it?

You see, we'd rather not wait until the "smoking gun". A pre-emtive strike is neccessary to protect our infrastructures. Hopefully, put in these terms, the point I'm trying to make might become clear.

You are joking, right? I realize the numbers have changed somewhat since this study, but have you seen more recent figures that are that significantly different from these?

I don't think the US has quite hit the 100K mark.

I've got to assume that you're talking about the current US Military regime, since you're trying to focus this on current regimes, not old regimes -- it's also accurate. Thousands of innocent civilians have died as a result of military action in Iraq since the US took over. "For their protection".

This goes along with torture and murder in the prisons (with the government claiming irresponsibility), skirting (if not outright violation) of the Geneva convention, .... etc. etc. etc.

The article referenced in this Slashdot story is a complete lie, in my opinion. It is certainly possible to do what the article says. However, the cost in energy is greater than the amount of the energy returned.

The situation was the same 50 years ago. There is a huge amount of oil in the shale, but no way has been found to extract the huge amounts of oil efficiently.

The article refers to the "Synfuels debacle". Here's an article about Synfuels called The Great Energy Scam that discusses how scammers take advantage of the lack of technical knowledge of the public. Here's another article: Harsh glare on synfuels hitting home.

In my opinion, this is just another attempt to start a new scam. I think the word farce is too weak. Here's a little about how it works: THE 2005 ENERGY BILL, Helping Corporations, Hurting Western Colorado.

--
Bush lied, many died.

So to the over one hundred thousand innocent Iraqi people who have been murdered since the invasion, you are saying to them "no life is better than life under Saddam?"

No one seriously believed the 100,000 number other than the big media outlets out to get Bush at all costs. Check out this analysis at Slate.com - not what one would consider a Bush-friendly source. It's statistics at its worst.

A fact-based, yet still not Bush-friendly source is iraqbodycount.net. Their number is 25-28K.

Now, clearly this is tragic. But consider it in perspective. This isn't Eden where we went in and started shooting up naked people eating fruit. These people were being killed to the tune of 300,000 over the previous decade, where the government sponsored rape rooms for wives and daughters of dissidents, killed political opponents and underperforming athletes by tossing them into "people shredders" and flat-out poison gas attacked its own citizens who stepped out of line. These murders are documented and/or verifiable from excavation of the hundreds of mass graves around Iraq where they bulldozed in the bodies.

Now, consider the current deaths occurred during a time of actual War, that the people have been liberated, and that the insurgents have to import terrorists because the Iraqi people are not sympathetic to their cause. Then please try to restate your case how the Iraqi people were better off under Hussein.

If this is verified, I will never buy from ASUS again. Before I thought they were a vendor of quality motherboards.

--
Bush lied, many died.

Questions taken from the Slashdot story: Is your boss a Psychopath?

How do you rate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? -- Questions for Questions:

Q: When he harms other people, does he feel a lack of remorse or guilt? A: Does killing people qualify as harming them?

Q: Does he lie habitually even though he can easily be found out? A: Does lying to start a war qualify as lying? A2: Does pretending that you have reduced the violence in another country, rather than increased it, qualify as lying?

Q: When he's exposed, does he still act unconcerned because he thinks he can weasel out of it? A: Does saying it's all fine qualify as being unconcerned?

Q: Is he concerned about himself rather than the wreckage he inflicts on others or society at large? A: Does worrying only about election results qualify as being concerned only about oneself?

Q: Does he use his skill at lying to cheat or manipulate other people in his quest for money? A: When both Bush and Cheney have a long history of oil and weapons investments among family and friends, does starting a war in the world's second most oil-rich country qualify as a quest for money?

Q: Does he cruelly mock others? A: Does George W. Bush calling his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, "turd blossom" qualify as cruelly mocking him? A2: Does giving people disrespectful nicknames qualify as mocking them?

Q: Is he callous and lacking in empathy? A: Does taking habitual risks with the lives of other people while driving qualify as lacking in empathy? A2: George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest A3: George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also, for stunts that were not something a sober person would find interesting. A4: Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest A5: Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest

--
If your government chooses killing as policy, expect others to choose the same.

Maybe you mean the Riverdale School District in Portland, Oregon? Very impressive project, great guys.

--
Bush lied, many died.

reported iraqi civilian deaths as a direct result of us military action:

min 23,456 max 26,559

from the iraqi body count database

sum.zero

That's even more shocking!!!

"Christians" are so arrogant that they believe they can kill anyone they like, and their killing should not be considered.

The "Christian" U.S. has supported a government that has killed perhaps 3,000,000 people since the end of the Second World War. None of those people threatened the United States.

The "Christians" in the U.S. think these people and their families and friends don't matter: Iraqi Civilian Body Count.

Osama bin Laden said that he attacked solely because of the U.S. government support for killing Arabs. Is that true? Did the U.S. government kill Arabs? Yes.

If your gov't chooses killing as policy, expect others to choose the same.

I'm against violence. In my opinion, violence is caused by mental illness, and has nothing to do with religion.

Many fundamentalist "Christians" believe that the "end time" is near. They believe that during the approach of the "end time", the Jews will have power over all of the region around Israel. Then they believe Jews will either die or be converted to Christianity.

Wait, there's more: The Jews support the Christian violence because they want U.S. citizens to be involved in "defense" of Israel. That reduces the cost to them. The Israelis believe that, this time, the Christians won't really kill them. That's in spite of the fact that, during the Second World War, "Christians" killed half of the Jews in the entire world. (At present, there are about 14,000,000 Jews in the entire world. More Jews live in New York than live in Israel.)

Read all about it: Zion's Christian Soldiers

Again, if your gov't chooses killing as policy, expect others to choose the same.

The actual count is less than 30,000. Almost all of these were killed as a result of the direct actions of Saddam and the terrorists (using civilians as human shields, denying people food, etc.). This total is less than the average deaths over a time period of the same length during Saddam's reign of terror. Based on this fact of an lower "body count", the end result is that Bush and Blair have actaully saved lives in the process of responding to the terrorist attacks and threats from the former Iraq government.

It may also be that they've gotten used to it. After all they are at war, and as terrible as this attack is, it's after all "only" 50 people or so, and in Iraq this happens on a regular basis

As far as I'm concerned, I wonder if the term "terrorist act" is even correct. They are at war, they have their troops in Iraq, they have killed, aided in killing, or created situations that assisted in killing, ca. 23,000 people. Now the war has come to their own soil.
Tragedy? Sure. Atrocity? Hell, yeah. Terrorism? I don't think so

Iraqis and other Muslims have killed far more civilians in Iraq than the US ever has (even if you don't start counting until two years ago)

One thing that is interesting when you look at all of the numbers of deaths in Iraq is that they're remarkably consistant compared to past wars, despite what study you look at. You get numbers of ~10-20k civilian deaths directly related to combat, ~15-20k iraqi military deaths directly related to combat, and ~150k total additional deaths over the same time period prior (i.e., most extra deaths weren't due to direct combat, but the deteriorating crime, health, water, etc situations).

About half of the civilian deaths were in the "initial combat phase". You'll http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount41. php?ts=1120756188count.net/database/bodycount41.ph p?ts=1120756188">notice that most civilian deaths during that time were inflicted by the US military, while you'll notice that most recently were inflicted by the insurgency.

All in all, it looks like a pretty even tossup of US and insurgency-caused civilian deaths. We have far greater firepower (and use far greater firepower), but use it with more accuracy and discression in most cases.

Well, maybe your government can stop participating in
terrorist acts (in which, by the way, die orders of
magnitude more innocents than today in london).
For example: iraqbodycount.net.

The best thing we can do is abandon Isreal to the wolves and get out of the whole region and spend the money we would of spent there on researching new alternative fuel sources.