Slashdot Mirror

Don't be a sucker. The govt has revised the way it tracks sectarian violence, and re-revised it again, until the numbers went down.

Since when is iraqbodycount.org the government?

If you want to define murder in that manner, then no, you haven't murdered them.

However, you've most certainly killed them.

Isn't this how BushCo has been justifying the staggering number of Iraqi civilian deaths? According to the relatively conservative (and verifiable) estimate of the Iraq Body Count, we've killed 0.3% of the population. There have been smaller genocides.

Just a note for future consideration, when you make the statement "conservative estimate of" you should not follow it with one of the most outrageous discredited claims from a far left anti-war group (I'm assuming you're using the Lancet as your source seeing they are the only organization to make a claim anywhere near that).

You may also want to factor in the deaths that over this time period would have been caused directly by Saddam's actions.

Try some place like Iraq Body Count (also anti-war but still honest in their record keeping) or any of the much more scientific studies done by the UN or other aid groups. None of which come anywhere close to the Lancets numbers.

Sorry to be replying to my own post. But you know all those terrible beheadings? American deaths are estimated to be about 3,742. Compare that to an estimated 71,277 dead Iraqi's. I'm not even trying to take a political stand here, it just seems those violent Islamics might be a minority. And FTR I'm looking into doing IT work abroad, possibly a hot zone so it's not something I take lightly one way or the other (I'll be trained in small arms and will use it if necessary). Just seems a bit off-kilter to blanket a people as being violent with those numbers.

You are right - it isn't 300,000. It's more like 70,000 - bit still, why quibble over the numbers? It's the spirit of the argument that counts.

On a side note, the 1,000,000 figure is pretty much pulled out of nowhere - last I checked, the most pessimistic estimates were ~100,000.

Is that because you haven't 'checked' since 2004? The number of reported deaths in the conflict is close to (but less than) 100000, but obviously not all deaths in a conflict are reported.

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated 100000+ 'excess' deaths by 2004. By July 2006--that's a full year ago now--they estimated over 650000 deaths.

Feel free to quarrel with their methodology if you're qualified, but (a) don't try to suggest that the numbers could not possibly be approaching the million mark, and (b) please do not try to imply that 100000 deaths brought on by a 'war of choice' isn't a truly hellish number.

A lot of people think like you: "It's simply too tiring."

But this sounds a lot like "It's simply too tiring to do the work to decide what I think. Or, "Women are too complicated; it is simply to tiring to try to understand my wife's problems".

Underlying my original comment is a LOT of research. I just didn't immediately find the link that discusses the careful checking of the results.

Anyway, what does it matter? The discussion is only about the Iraq Body Count estimate of 65,689 dead civilians and the estimate of the Johns Hopkins researchers, a scientific study which has passed expert peer review with "relatively minor revisions", and which says that 601,000 of those killed were killed because of the violence that violence causes.

No, but 100% will feel OK with the number of civilian casualties in Iraq... http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Nobody cares about poor people far away...duh!

If you take a look at the database you'll see that the top death is listed as 2 civilians killed by "suicide oil trucks".

If you want to go back further in time, wasn't it the US government that put Saddam in power, and gave him those evil weapons of mass destruction?

No, and no. That's just another case of the America-caused-everything-bad-in-the-world silliness. Once a lie is repeated often enough, it comes to replace the truth.

In the bombing of Berlin alone, more civilians were killed than in the entire Iraq war. Perspective is important. Civilians die, yes, and it's a horrible thing, but that's war.

If the US leaves, hundreds of thousands more die in sectarian violence, and Iraq turns into either an oppressive theocratic dictatorship, or it becomes a proxy state of Iran (same thing more or less).

What's your point? Are you calling for moral relativism? That one person/one culture and its values is equally as good as another? It's nice that other societies care about life less. It's also irrelevant.

You can't tell me that all 60+k additional dead in Iraq post invasion were all enemy combatants about to blow up a marketplace.

Suicide bombers are a tiny minority of the population, but the deaths there haven't been terribly discriminatory.

The topic is civilian deaths, which compose the vast majority of violent deaths in Iraq right now.

I do have a problem with killing non-combatants just trying to get on with their lives.

If you want to go back further in time, wasn't it the US government that put Saddam in power, and gave him those evil weapons of mass destruction?

Still, 26% of 63k is still 16k, a lot of dead people.

Oh yeah, because everyone knows there are no civilian casualties in Iraq from US military actions. Civilian casualties are civilian casualties, be it from terrorism, military invasion, ethnic cleansing, whatever. The innocent are just as dead.

If Kucinich was the only person accusing Cheney of crimes, or if there wasn't an abundance of evidence of those crimes, then it might be reasonable to ask why Kucinich was bringing it up. But since Cheney's crimes are quite obvious, the real question should be why no one else in the House has the guts to cosponsor the impeachment. Exactly how criminal does an administration have to be before anyone is willing to stand up and do something about it? Nixon was brought down by a simple political burglary, and Cheney has helped start a war of aggression that has cost over 60,000 lives

Kucinich's case is well documented. Check the case out for yourself. And even if Kucinich were bringing these charges just to increase his own popularity, if the charges are justified, who cares? The charges are substantive, and have nothing to do with Kucinich. Ad hominem arguments against Kucinich are red herrings... look at the facts!

[The] president tells lies about so-called weapons of mass destruction, fabricates connections between Saddam and terror groups, and uses those lies as a means to justify a war that get tens of thousands of people killed.

Iraq Body Count says about 55,000 people have died because of DIRECT violence caused by the U.S. government. However, that does not count the people who died because of indirect causes. Iraq Body Count is defending itself against criticism that it is undercounting the deaths due to U.S. government violence; you can read the discussions on the site.

An estimated 150,000 Iraqis died because of the first U.S. government-Iraq war. So, the Bush family has killed about 205,000 Iraqis, even using estimates that are low because they count only direct violence.

The total number of people killed in the 24 countries that the U.S. government has invaded since the 2nd world war is, sensibly, I think, estimated at 11,000,000. This counts the number of people who died because of the violence that violence causes.

The U.S. government has started a civil war in Iraq, as well as starting its own war. The people who die in the civil war must be considered to have died because of Cheney - Rumsfeld - G.W. Bush violence. The U.S. government violence did not create a peaceful democracy. It created an even more unstable country; that's exactly to be expected; violence breeds violence.

The best methods available for surveying casualties tells us [bbc.co.uk] that the body count is around the most probable number of 655 thousand, which is backed by the statistical community.

It most certainly is not (keep in mind, this is from a fairly anti-war website).

The 655k figure study, by the Lancet medical journal, sampled heavily from the most violent areas. The 655k figure is BS, and so is the survey.

A much better study is available here.

The best methods available for surveying casualties tells us that the body count is around the most probable number of 655 thousand....

I wouldn't be so sure that study is reliable.

655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties

The Iraq Body Count project take on it.

Some additional discussion.

What crack are you on? There were reports coming out even years ago saying that in 2003 alone, the US led invasion on Iraq killed more people than Saddam killed in the last 20(!) years combined!

Sources:
182,000 gassed in the late 80's by Saddam.

57,617 MAX Iraqi deaths in this war.

Your own what? Race? A more important human?

My beliefs were not the point of my post, I was just revealing my 'bias'. I will now further elaborate on my beliefs:

I don't feel this country owes anybody else a thing. Meddling in the affairs of others is likely the most avoidable cause of terrorist attacks on this country and a poor public image in the eyes of other nations. All we have to do is nothing, and nobody can blame us for anything. Obviously, we don't have the cash to be doing this stuff anyway (look at our deficit), and we NEVER get paid. IMO, if we're to go out and be the world's police, the world should pay us back (and more than just buying our Gov't bonds).

If the US had stayed out of WWI, there may have never been a WWII. If the US hadn't helped the Sudan kick Bin Laden out, he may not have been in Afghanistan. How big do we have to F'up, and how much money (which we don't have) do we have to waste before we stop with this foolishness?

Why should these wounds be reopened? Because our current president lied to us and due to it hundreds of thousands of people have died.

No they haven't: http://iraqbodycount.org/database/

I have read obituaries that have been more positive than slashdotters' comments on the Iraq War.

No, they don't make that distinction.

from http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php:
The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.

then let's put in mind the fact that we've lost close to 3,000 lives in this war. The number is about the same as those lost on 9/11.

Oh, sure, you can claim he made the world safe by taking down a dictator. Just try telling that to the Iraq people as they bury more people in a single day than Saddam killed.

Where in the world do you get your statistics from? Conservative estimates by even the UN *start* the low-end estimates at around 300,000! A comparison might be helpful. Both are probably very, very low estimates, but the comparison has some weight.

Peer reviewed by who exactly.

The original study:

Slate's review.
Another useful breakdown of problems with their methods.
Just one more for flavor.

Their latest study:

The Wall Street Journal's take. This covers the main problem with both studies, ridiculous clustering methodology. It also points out another important aspect as to how poorly the respondents were documented.

Iraq Body Count's review.

A little on the political bias of the 'impartial' researchers:

The Political Pitbull.
Lancet editor at an anti-war protest. Notice his circular reasoning that since his new report using the same flawed methodology confirms his original report that he is completely vindicated.

And that was just from the first page of my Google search.

Monday 23 October was the worst day, when around 80 died.

On Tuesday 24 October the dead included 4 Iraqi firefighters, killed by US forces in Fallujah, mistakenly believing they were insurgents who had commandeered a firetruck.

On Wednesday 25 October US aircraft kill some more Iraqi civilians, when they bomb houses in Sadr City. At least 10 die in the bombing.

Thursday 26 October comes a close second with around 70 deaths. A lot of those killed are police officers, over 30 of them, while 50 policemen are kidnapped and are still missing. Suicide bombs kill 15 in Kirkuk, and another journalist is killed, together with his wife.

On Friday 27 October US forces raid a house in Fallujah and shoot dead 2 civilians. At least 30 bodies are found scattered in Baghdad, Mosul and Suwayrah.

Another US airstrike, this time in Ramadi, kills a family of 6 (2 of them children) on Saturday 28 October. Over 30 dead bodies are found, 11 Iraqi soldiers are abducted, and in Kirkuk an activist for women's rights is killed in front of her children.

It looks like the Lancet figure that 30% are killed by the US military is reasonable.

So, gassing hundreds because they are against you politically is completely on the same level as providing evidence, having a trial, finding guilty, sentencing said man?

9/11 deaths: 2,819

US soldier deaths (Afghanistan): 901 (total, fourth table)
US soldier deaths (Iraq): 2,823 (total, first table)
Iraqi Security Forces deaths: 15,249 (total, third table)
Iraqi civilian deaths: ~48,000
Afghan civilian deaths: 3,485

And this is just plain scary.
Do the math.

Let's use the maximum provided here: http://iraqbodycount.org/ 50,321 and STFU.

So that discounts the approximately 50,000 Iraqi civilians that have been killed since we invaded?* Does that discount our usage of white phosphorous in Fallujah? First they said it was for "illumination purposes". Then it was for offensive use, but only against "enemies". Then the documentaries came out, showing what our media would not or could not report: that we melted innocent people that day. And not just a couple.

After over three years have come and gone, with the situation getting progressively worse, the casualty rate increasing, civil war too blatantly obvious to be denied any longer, how could you possibly call it anything but genocide? What do you call it? A tragedy, an unfortunate thing... maybe a comma in history?

In any case, I'll answer your question. For one, I never said the intention was genocide. Only in the movies could anything be so cut and dry. Second, it would really depend on exactly how many they didn't let evacuate, and why.

* Suspected to be FAR higher. Of course, ask W, and it's "30,000, more or less".

Body count Bush: 120,000+ and counting, with infinite military power to spare, ready to oppress a nation.
Body count Bin Laden: 5,000 and struggling to survive, on the run with with no nation to call home.

Ah, I see. It's Bush that's arming the insurgents and getting one sect of Muslims to blow up another sect of Muslims. Right, I keep forgetting that.

5,000? Is that really, really what you think Al Queda has limited itself to? If that's your take on it, then the "perspective" from which you're operating is incredibly twisted. First: cite your 120,000 reference, being sure to include an indication that it's US troops that have killed the people you're referring to.

Even a group that's solidly against the use of western forces to support the new Iraqi government puts the total number of deaths at roughly 30,000. Your 120K is just total BS. And more to the point: just because most of those deaths took place while the US(+) forces were in the country doesn't mean it's those forces killing thousands of civilians. The insurgency is an indiscriminate violence machine doing its best to convince people that the US presence is the cause of the sectarian violence, rather than a propoganda excuse for the terror that's being deployed, by jihaddi activists and states like Iran, to erode trust in a new democracy that isn't completely beholden to Wahabbists and their ilk. They're willing to slaughter other Muslims to paint a picture that they hope will obscure causality, and you're just singing their tune perfectly. Hope that feels nice for you, what with your perspective, and all.

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq: 43,491. That's not enough?

Have you picked up a newspaper lately? Half a million Iraqi citizens dead

Please provide some statistics to backup your claim. In looking at this site, the total is nowhere near what you claim. IraqBodyCount.org has the civilian totals for civilian casualties between 40,000 to 45,000. Not a small number by any means but nowhere near the amount you claim.

The country is in complete, total, utter chaos.

Been subscribing to one of the far left theories I see. Sure, parts of the country have problems but if you look a bit, you can find other references to success in Iraq. I'm sure I could present a pretty picture of Iraq without any facts, very much like what you did, but then I'd be labeled on the far right. I'll stick to my "center of the road" ways.

Jim

Have you picked up a newspaper lately? Half a million Iraqi citizens dead

Please provide some statistics to backup your claim. In looking at this site, the total is nowhere near what you claim. IraqBodyCount.org has the civilian totals for civilian casualties between 40,000 to 45,000. Not a small number by any means but nowhere near the amount you claim.

The country is in complete, total, utter chaos.

Been subscribing to one of the far left theories I see. Sure, parts of the country have problems but if you look a bit, you can find other references to success in Iraq. I'm sure I could present a pretty picture of Iraq without any facts, very much like what you did, but then I'd be labeled on the far right. I'll stick to my "center of the road" ways.

Jim

I, for one, welcome our US overlords. Really, I don't know what the Iraqis have been complaining about; I look forward to an endless invasion of my sovereign country with an unknown body count

> If the definition of murder were that simple, then our President would already have been convicted for the murders of (pick your number, I'll settle for a round number near the middle) 100,000 Iraqis.

I could not agree more to your clear and logical argument.

However, beware that moral acting and legal acting are two different things (and please consider further that not every crime is punished).

PS: Since you suggested I pick a number, I pick 42,646. Not 100,000, but of course even one innocent life lost is already one to many.

I wish it was. However, facts point in the opposite direction. Take the 9/11 bombers for instance. They were anything but "desperate", living normal (in fact, better than normal) lives in U.S., the country which they bombed. Take Bin-Laden, born to one of the richest families in the world (!), born into every comfort and luxury in the world - yet decided to embark on a path of global religious war and murderous terror.

The desperation these people feel is that they can't fight back on equal terms. The Palestinians got AK-47, RPGs, bombs and Katyusha rockets. Israel has everything the Palestinians got plus a great deal of hi-tech weaponry (Airplanes, smart bombs, tanks, attack helicopters etc). The Palestinians who blow themselves up, see this act as the only way they can hit back "hard" on the enemy. I'm pretty sure that if you equiped the Jews and Palestinians with the same weapons, you wouldn't have seen suicide bombings.

As for Bin Laden. His current view of the world was pretty much shaped during the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, where he fought the occupying forces with weapons provided by the Americans. Read up on what happened after the war ended, and you know that there was a political and economic vacuum in Afghanistan after the war since everyone left the country on its own. This lead to civil war and an invasion of religious fanatics from neighbouring Pakistan. Learn from history, and you won't create another haven for terrorism.

Contrast that with many millions of people in Africa, compared to which even the poorest Palestinians are living like kings (how many Palestinians die of hunger or thirst annually? As the "inhumane" Olmert said a few days ago, 'we would not allow a single Palestinian child to die of hunger'). Yet you won't see those trully poor people commit mass-murder through systematic bombing of civilian population.

This is another form of desperation. What I was talking about is political/military desperation.

The current wave of terroristic mass-murder is fueled not by economic "desperation", but by extreme religious hate and idealogy condoning - nay, glorifying! - mass-murder. Most of the terrorists have an average (or not much below) quality of life.

So, things like this, isn't glorifying mass-murder?

Try to understand what I've written above. I'm not anti-American, or some terrorist loving tree hugger. I just try to see things beyond the propaganda from all sides of the story. What happened in New York on September 11 was a cowardice act, but it was an act of desperation.

Whoever you are, wherever you are... live in peace. Take care.

Um, for 20th March 2005 to 1st March 2006 the Iraq Body Count estimate is 12,617 civilian deaths. That's more that 1,000 per month.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr13.php

Yes, we agree on many points. And I'm glad we managed to keep this civil. The points we disagree on are rather big though:

I do not believe that the death of tens of thousands of civilians can be justified by claiming to be bringing democracy.

I do not believe that you can force democracy on a country. All you can achive that way is a pseudo colony with a pseudo democracy. The kind of situation leading to the current state of Africa.

I do not believe that Bush believed there were WMDs in Iraq, nor that Iraq was closely tied to Al Quaeda, nor that Iraq was any kind of threat to the US.
I do believe that the "intelligence failures" were 100% intentional.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-15936 07,00.html
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/sp ecial_packages/iraq/intelligence/11901380.htm
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/sp ecial_packages/iraq/intelligence/12995512.htm

I do not believe that Bush invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
This count is most likely closer to the truth:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11 674.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2006/05/12/wirq12.xml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2162249, 00.html
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1 186519,00.html
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArti cle.asp?articleID=8218

The list is endless but I'll stop here.

I believe that Bush does and will continue to do exactly whatever he feels will benefit him, with no concern what so ever for how many dies for his gain. Not that you actually need anything but his actions and his statements to prove this, but here are more links:
http://downingstreetmemo.com/archive/2004-10-31-Ho ustonChron-Herskowitz/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12 885.htm

I believe that Bush is now planning his next war of aggression.
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20 060511&hn=33036
http://www.rense.com/general71/tdarg.htm
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/05/ us-feverishly-works-to-frame-iran_13.html
http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/839133.sh tml
http://english.people.com.cn/200605/13/eng20060513 _265252.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Condoleeza_Rice_ admits_she_responded_to_0509.html

Would you actually listen to yourself? You compare "A Few Hundred" civilian deaths to something like spilling a can of coke! Do you actually pause for a second and think about the fact that that is "A few hundred" individuals??? PEOPLE!!!! like you and me, wiped off the face of the planet by a bomb dropped from 10000 feet, the fact that such destructive power can be unleashed from so far away perfectly sums up the current American administrations (and anyone who supports thems) values, "Hey, I didnt see them get ripped apart in front of their families in a shower of flying debris, so i'll just call it a statistic, who could get offended by a statistic?" that distance between pulling the trigger and actually seeing the person die is what allows people to "justify" the war, as they have no connection with the war actually killing people, they see numbers like 30'000 Iraqi Civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) (Thats 30'000 people who were living and breathing 30 seconds before a state funded and trained pilot decided to release a bomb costing more than all those people would probably ever earn in their entire working lives combined, if they survived) think about that, think about where you live and if suddenly 30'000 of those people didnt exist anymore, does 30'000 deaths "balance" out the 3000 from 9/11?? i bet it makes you feel good that "Your country is making them pay!" Just remember that an eye for an eye will leave the world blind

I never said I was happy about civilian deaths, but to compare a stray missile to a suicide bomber is wrong. Trust me, if the suicide bombers had the aresenal of the US Military, none of us would be here talking about it!

But, if you to count numbers, fine. We'll use the number you posted of 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Now let's assume these were innocent civilians, killed by US personel, and not suicide bombers (also a civilian), terrorists charging checkpoints or making bombs or whatever. We'll also assume that these deaths were not the result of other means such as suicide bomber or whatever.

Now, compare that 30,000 number to the numbers Unicef reported. Unicef reported 1,000,000 deaths of children... just children, due to Saddam Hussein. Of course, this does not include the numbers of bodies we've found in mass graves (hundreds of thousands of men, women and children).

So, if we take your numbers and Unicef numbers, by my public school math skillz, I figure we saved 970,000 lives. These are people we are talking about. 970,000 people just like you and me. So, yeah! It does make me feel good that my country is doing something about it. Does it make you feel good when a mass grave is discovered filled with the skeletal remains of mothers still holding their toddler age children?

Of course, if you had your way, there would still be children dying from preventable diseases and bullets to the head as opposed to the accidental and rare stray missile.

Would you actually listen to yourself? You compare "A Few Hundred" civilian deaths to something like spilling a can of coke! Do you actually pause for a second and think about the fact that that is "A few hundred" individuals??? PEOPLE!!!! like you and me, wiped off the face of the planet by a bomb dropped from 10000 feet, the fact that such destructive power can be unleashed from so far away perfectly sums up the current American administrations (and anyone who supports thems) values, "Hey, I didnt see them get ripped apart in front of their families in a shower of flying debris, so i'll just call it a statistic, who could get offended by a statistic?" that distance between pulling the trigger and actually seeing the person die is what allows people to "justify" the war, as they have no connection with the war actually killing people, they see numbers like 30'000 Iraqi Civilians (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) (Thats 30'000 people who were living and breathing 30 seconds before a state funded and trained pilot decided to release a bomb costing more than all those people would probably ever earn in their entire working lives combined, if they survived) think about that, think about where you live and if suddenly 30'000 of those people didnt exist anymore, does 30'000 deaths "balance" out the 3000 from 9/11?? i bet it makes you feel good that "Your country is making them pay!" Just remember that an eye for an eye will leave the world blind

Yes, it is.

"... an obvious attempt at scoring political points..."

Somehow it was predictable that Republicans would be against Net Neutrality. The contributions come from those who want special favors from government, not those who want to benefit everyone.

Republicans: Borrowing money to kill Iraqis so that weapons and oil interests can profit.

--
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?

Does that concern you? Article about Bush hearing voices in his head telling him God told him to do it:

"President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/sto ries/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

This attack in turn led to the death of over 30,000 innocent Iraqi civilians:

http://iraqbodycount.org/

Christian nut cases like Bush in my own country concern me far more than some pissed off Muslims half way around the world. 911 was a one off and the forces of repression in the U.S. are using it to fan xenophobia and torch the constitution. If we just stopped consuming more than our fair share of oil and stopped catering to Israel's every whim, poof, no more pissed off Muslims problem solved, then all you religious fanatics hearing voices of "God" in your head can maybe get some Thorazine and the rest of us sane people will then sleep more soundly.

"In America, you have the freedom..."

... to be forced to pay for killing Iraqis.

The beauty of modern warfare is very few people die relative to former wars. We've only lost around 2,000 men and women in Iraq so far and although it is a trajedy (not the war, but the loss) it is far less than wars of the same scale in years prior. Technology makes the difference.

This annoys me. People do it a lot in real life too, but at least when posting on the net you have an extra few seconds to think about what you're writing. Use it.

Your central statement may well be correct - that putting someone in jail just for taking a particular position is damaging to democracy, a morally inexcusable deprivation of rights, etc.

But why is there then a recourse to tendentious hyperbole in order to justify your position?? "This one incident dwarfs ANYTHING questionable the Bush administration may have done." What the *hell* are you talking about?!

Let's not even argue about the killing of tens of thousands of civilians as a direct result of an invasion based on evidence that was not only shown to be wrong in due course, but that everyone else thought was wrong from the start. (Wilful blindness anyone? At law, this gives rise to a constructive inference of knowledge).

Let's compare oranges to oranges. You're talking about the unjustifiable imprisonment of people. Hmm... how about the hundreds of inmates at Guantanamo Bay *who haven't had a freakin trial?!?!* Innocent till proven guilty? Unless you're the wrong colour or wear a towel on your head. Right? Oh, the US constitution doesn't protect them? Hmm... well, the German Constitution doesn't protect hate speech. Guess it's okay then is it?

I could go on, but it could be bad for my blood pressure. Grrrr.... Stick to your point, don't fsck it up by making stupid tangential claims.

You're right. They hate our freedom and these are clearly terrorist acts. I don't think I even need to explain the link between them and 911, any idiot can see it.

We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We *KNOW* they have weapons of mass destruction. Freedom, freedom, stay the course, weapons of mass destruction. Freedom, freedom, stay the course, weapons of mass destruction.

Freedom, freedom, stay the course
Weapons of mass destruction

Bring 'em on!

Freedom, freedom, stay the course
Weapons of mass destruction

Fuck Greenland

Freedom, freedom, stay the course
Weapons of mass destruction

Fuck Greenland

Pussy, pansy motherfuckers
You know what you get
When you fuck with the red, the white, and the blue

We're coming to liberate you
We know who's responsible for 911
and it's fucking you

We're number one
We know what's best for you
We're coming to liberate you