Slashdot Mirror

Everybody still marvels why we haven't yet gone bankrupt. Quality products and quality service might actually be a good idea. Who knows?

People around here have a different opinion. We are talking about germany, right? The country which has control on the European bank lobby to force countries to go into higher debt while at the same time forcing those countries to put up with austerity measures about 90% of economy students would never recommend in such a situation? This germany whose poverty level has kept rising up to 15% in 2010 (and unfortunately can't find the data on more recent years, which is higher)? This germany who tricks the unemployment rate by forcing people to have half-jobs, which some eldery people have to take because otherwise they wouldn't be able to pay for food/house?

You surely jest (or have been brainwashed properly by the Bank Lobby).

I'm going to speculate that better welfare in Europe helps, too.

That seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Recall that we're talking about Switzerland specifically and not Europe as a whole though. This article indicates that the Swiss welfare system is rather unique. There are other aspects that feed into this situation like immigration and drug policies too.

probably some of the DDoS attacks can be explained by surge in the number of viewers.

I suspect all of it can be explained as a traffic spike, rather than a DDoS attack.

The Government lost support in the election, so this was just the physical manifestation of increased voter interest in alternatives.

A similar thing happened at the last British EU Parliament election, with the websites of non-Government political parties being swamped with swing voters. It's just a case of small website meets big traffic.

Yes, it is a fact well known to those of us with tinfoil hats on top of our tinfoil hats that there is no longer a single white male CEO at any US company. It's true! And it's now illegal to vote unless you're a foreigner!! And Obama's 'birth certificat' is a blatant forgery!!! And I'm hoarding gold and guns against the coming Apocalypse as prophesied in the Turner Diaries!!!!

You seem to share a vice common among some Europeans of having difficulty telling friend from foe.

WikiLeaks: fear of offending Muslims allowed extremists into Britain ahead of 7/7 London bombings
University campuses are 'hotbeds of Islamic extremism'
Being too PC led us to shelter terrorists, says ex-minister
Muslim group claims royal wedding is legitimate terror target
Does the BBC view Israel's existence as a legitimate 'grievance'?
Sadly, I've been proved right. Britain IS a centre of terror. Tragically, our rulers can't see the truth

Well, at least someone is being deported:
Afghan Christians to be deported despite death fears

You should probably get out more. Mmm... quite

Well,... do let us know how that whole thing works out. I'm sure you'll be happier with that lot than any Americans. Cheers! (You might want to take that literally ... I understand they aren't too keen on alcohol.)

we are not arguing about *whether* to pay taxes but that the rich get out of paying their fair share. we can debate what fair is, but what's clear is that they pay little to no taxes. not even close to fair, in anyone's book.

Here in the UK, the top 1% income tax payers pay about 25% of all the taxes:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5245013/why-cameron-should-ditch-the-50p-tax-rate.thtml

I imagine in the US and other wealthy countries, it's similar.

further rises of the ocean could threaten the existence of Maldives

No.

The people of the Maldives had no problems surviving the 17th century, which was 50cm higher than now. Nor the last century, where it rose by 20cm. This bodes well for their prospects of surviving the next change.

Fortunately you don't have to secure the entire area. You just have to secure safe transit lanes for merchant shipping.

This picture might be old, but it does illustrate the point. There are dozens of traffic lanes in the Indian Ocean, and if you secure one the pirates will attack the next. You can't expect to secure dozens of shipping lanes, each thousands of miles long.

Regarding your other post,

Yes. When the Somalis are willing to behave in the manner of civilized nations then they can have the same rights as those civilized nations. As long as they permit their citizens to commit crimes on the high seas they have no grounds to complain when we deny them access to those same seas.

I'd hardly call Somalia a nation. It's an area that's been in civil war for almost 20 years, there's about 30 groups struggling over control, their waters are being plundered by international fishing ships, and "in the coastal areas of war-ridden Somalia, piracy still is the only show in town, the only booming economy." (source)

Words like "nation" and "allowing" their "citizens" don't apply here. It's harder to survive there than most of us can imagine, and piracy is their one source of income.

If you won't take my word for it (and I sincerely hope you won't), I suggest you read this article, written by someone who spent the last 17 years covering the situation in Somalia, and knows what he's talking about.

Tolerate the openly genocidal intolerant "victims" or be called a racist !

You know, just like in 1938.

Why can't we listen to the racist imperialists that want to kill the whole world for once ? You know, like Winston Churchill.

Of course, if we only acquiesce to the reasonable demands of muslims (such their demand the Jews give up the one real, armed, barrier standing between them and another holocaust), then surely they will leave us in peace and we'll all live happily ever after. Or this seems to be the prevailing logic for everything left of center in our society.

There was an interesting article in The Spectator recently that identified Russia's weak legal system as a significant problem.

In the absence of functional legal or law enforcement systems, people’s only real protection lies in a network of personal and professional relationships with powerful individuals.

You mean like Senator Edward Kennedy???

Obama was given the award because he's been trying to build bridges and strengthen diplomatic ties between nations that have been estranged...

...at the expense of solid relationships with our long-term allies. Considering with whom our interests as a country more closely align, do you think this is a good trade? I don't. I think he has a particularly deep hate for the Brits out of some misplaced loyalty to the Kenyan baby-daddy who spawned him, but he's giving the rest of our allies the finger to varying degrees as well.

Ho ho ho. I see Charles Leadbeater thinks otherwise:

"A recession will be a boon for the webâ(TM)s pro-am, do-it-yourself ethic. Professional social networks such as Linked In may come into their own as out-of-work people look for jobs. There may be more Popbitch and less Heat magazine; more use of free, open-source software than expensive offerings from Microsoft; more recycling of secondhand goods through eBay and freecycling schemes; more sharing of resources like cars through websites like GoLoco and Liftsharing. The collaborative, low-cost organisational models the web allows will come into their own; high-cost industrial-era models will suffer."

Fascinating, just where did you read that from?

I thought he koran is supposed to only be in one language so that it does not get mis-interpreted and has not been modified (as opposed to the bible) what is your source please?

I also thought jihad meant struggle and the only true jihad is the inner struggle.

Just where in the koran does it say to kill infidels? I thought it said to kill the infidels if they attack you (in self fdefence)

Power hungry zealots twist things around to suit their own ends and are helped by peoples fears of things that are different (as you are of muslims) making it easier to portray the people as inhuman, which religion it is is immaterial.

I also got that you said you weren't religious, it obviously went over your head that hatred is a religion

"The interesting bit here is the Beeb isn't really a commercial organization"

Yes, they are. But they are a commercial organization that is allowed to keep its hand in the public's pocket by means of the licence fee.

However, the BBC also makes a lot of money off sales of programmes, sales of books, CDs and DVDs, a number of magazines it publishes sold through newsagents, and various other schemes.

"They're a public entity ..."

No, they're not. They have a charter they -- theoretically -- have to abide by, because of the way they are funded. They are *not* a public body.

  "... which is strictly required to keep itself free of commercial and political influence."

They may be required to. They've ignored their requirements for years -- particularly the latter one -- and got away with it. There's a strong left-liberal bias there. They've even admitted as much themselves behind closed doors. Unfortunately for them, the report where they did got leaked:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Goodness, we had more proof of the obvious only just recently -- it's only what one would expect:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/298421/how-liberal-is-the-bbc.thtml

As for being in bed with Bill Gates, from what I've heard they certainly are pretty good friends if nothing more. But I wouldn't exactly be surprised if stained sheets did turn up at some point.

The BBC, of course, has to go a little careful. If it shuts Linux and Mac users out permanently it would have to answer to the communications regulator, Ofcom:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/

The BBC will be well aware of that.

"...we do hate the Chinese Government and its continued suppression...The fact that you are equating the both the government and its people as one is part of the problem."

Wake up and take a look at the rest of the world. There is no noticable insurrection in China. The Chinese, by and large, like their government. It's only dozy Americans who keep on complaining about liberty, as if that has any importance compared to a rising standard of living. This reference gives a recent indication of Chinese thinking:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?issue=2006- 04-22&id=7657

"China is slowly becoming the new hegemonic power in the world"

Read 'rapidly'.

" while the US Government is a despicable sellout to corporate interests, at least it believes in relative freedom and democracy (if you discount the whole Patriot Act thing)."

Um. If you discount the entire American Government's actions for the last thirty years, and most of the American people's attitude, America might seem acceptable. In fact, America believes in nothing more that the corporate right of America to rule the world. American traditions of freedom are folk myths which serve corporate bosses.

The major part of the rest of the world - China and Europe, has already gone over to a bureaucratic non-elected administrative ruling structure which by-passes politics. This is the way the world will be run for the next few hundred years. If you can't drop your constitution and pretend frontier spirit rapidly and catch up with the rest of us, you will be left so far behind that you will need binoculars to see our dust.

The second article appeared in The Spectator, like I said. That's where I read it. The Catholic website is just the place where it's free online. You've really got to have a grudge against Catholics if you won't take a free link from them. City Journal, where the other article appears, is also a completely secular website.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that there are any mainstream Christians claiming that sex is evil. None since Origen, certainly. I happen to be an atheist, and I don't think that sex is evil. I know that Scruton doesn't. As far as sexual mores go, I see a lot of similarity between Christians and non-Christians. The biggest cultural differences are between the polygamous parts of the world and the monogamous parts of the world. As Sir Richard Burton says, that's mainly a function of climate. The non-monogamous parts of the world tend to have more serious strictures against sex outside of marriage, and fathers are expected to do more. The polygamous, mainly tropical, parts of the world tend to have less serious strictures against sex outside of marriage, and fathers are expected to do less. Those are the main outlines of sexual morality, not any of this Christian versus non-Christian crap.

Which type of sex suits your psychology, polygamous mating patterns versus monogamous mating patterns, probably depends more on genes than on culture.

*blink*

Does anyone but you think that piece of camel shit is still alive? I'm still sticking to my "Buried under tons of rubble the day we dropped three daisycutters in Afghanistan in late 2001".

A transcript concerning a day on which one such weapon was dropped, reads as follows:

Q: Mr. Secretary, the other day, the United States took the extraordinary step of dropping a daisy cutter somewhere up in Tora Bora. You folks apparently had a pretty good idea of where someone you thought was. Have you found intelligence to borne out (sic) your hunch?

Rumsfeld: Well, there are not a lot of those, [daisycutters in the inventory] so they don't use them frivolously. There's no question that when that was used, I thought it was yesterday -- was it yesterday?

[ ...discussion on "when"... ]

Rumsfeld: Well, very recently. That they felt they had good reason to use it in that location. Yes.

Myers: And --

Q: Mr. Secretary --

Myers: And I just -- let me just add, Mr. Secretary, it was effective. I mean, we've been on the ground and it had the desired effect.

Q: Which was what? What was the desired effect?

Q: Can you describe to us anecdotally what the --

Myers: The desired effect was to kill al Qaeda.

Q: What sort of results are you aware of? What did your people on the ground see?

Myers: Dead al Qaeda.

(Laughter.)

It's convenient for foreign and domestic policy reasons to pretend the camelfucker's still alive, but if we 'adn't nailed 'im to the media, 'e'd be pushing up the daisy cutters. 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! OSAMA... *thump thump thump* ...IS AN EX-TERRORIST!

thank you for reacting before reading my entire post, or stopping to consider the 50,000 dead american soldiers in vietnam, or the the hundreds to thousands of soldiers that died every hour storming the beaches of Normandy, all day long.

Your lack of perspective is astounding, and you completely ignored my statements counter to the very tired mantra you repeat.. "More people have died since Bush declared this war "over" than died while it was going on.

I don't know where the lies and deception came in, as I hope it was evident that I was expressing my take on agreed upon numbers. Must I state the obvious that it's my opinion, preface it with something like IMHO before I say anything?

Would you deny the recent major terrorist bombings in Iraq, against the UN and a mosque? No? Do you disagree that we have a military presence in both Germany and Japan at the moment? As far as I can tell at this late hour, those are the only statements of fact I made.

Everything else is up to intrepretation. Just because you don't like my interpretation, doesn't mean I'm lying or being decietful. And covering your ears and saying 'lalalala I can't hear you" won't help.

Quick? Decisive? We owned that country in a matter of weeks with minimal resistance. The continued desperate, sporadic attacks coming from the Jihaadists I see as signs of desperation, and a great improvement that they're attacking defended targets now, our soldiers, who are quite good at defending themselves, as opposed to our airline stewardesses.

It's hardly a useless conflict when Osoma bin laden is only seen in recycled footage, islamic terrorists are biting the hand that feeds them in the middle east, and they're throwing themselves in large numbers into the blender that is our troops. Sure, they take a few of our troops once in a while. I wager you're crying crocodile tears for our fallen soldiers, and take every spoon-fed soldier death as a great sign that things are SOOOOO BAD IN IRAQ.

I ask for perspective from you, boy, and I get nothing but an expected reaction before you even read 10 lines into my post.A plaintive whine that my opinions qualify as 'lies and deceptions' because they don't line up with yours is hardly worth writing a response over.

I won't call you an ignorant son of a bitch, or a heartless coward. All I ask of you is that you consider for a second your Dogmatic reactions are running on less than the full story. I see headlines on CNN, ABC news, and MSNBC backing up your shrill take on things. All I ask is that you read the following:

We're winning

and A view from the sandbox.

If you read the blogs of some of the soldiers over there, you might get a little more insight. When you read about all the bad news in the mainstream news, always remember that bad news sells alot better than good news- "no news is good news."

When you actually bother to read my post, and what I've linked to, please respond, because I enjoy this.

The only poll I've seen shows a slightly different opinion. It is limited to baghdad, and was taken previous to the latest round of bombings.

I'm curious to see a more timely one.

There we have it ladies and gentlemen -- while many of you thought that Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Sayeed ``No American Tanks within 100 Miles! What's that noise?'' Sahaf was inflating civilian casualty statistics, jdfox has uncovered the real truth: he was actually underreporting them! What a brilliant thesis...

Of course, there are plenty of concrete reasons to doubt the statistics provided by Womens' Studies (should that be `Wimmin's studies'?) professor Marc Herold:

• the fact that Mr. Herrod was so spectacularly (and famously) wrong in Afghanistan, reporting more than three times as many civilian casualties as the sources he claimed to have gotten his statistics from, and more than twice as many civilian casualties as the Taliban themselves did (see the section on civilian casualties at the end of that article)
• The fact that Herold's statistical methods have been thoroughly debunked, which is no surprise, as he has no training or background in statistics at all.
• The fact that he steadfastly refuses to explain where he gets his numbers, despite repeated demonstrations that he is double- and even triple- counting actual incidents, and accepting other incidents as genuine based only on the allegations of Taliban and Iraqi Information Ministry sources.
• The fact that the non-partisan Statistical Assssment Service, a group of professional and academic statisticians formed to combat the incorrect use of statistics in the media has examined Mr. Herold's methods and found them fatally flawed.

The US purposefully targets civilians,

Care to provide any reference supporting this claim? For that matter, can you explain why, if we are in fact targeting civilians, we're doing such a poor job of hitting them (about 1,100 civilians dead in Afghanistan, for example -- see the section on civilian casualties at then end of this article for details)?

they admit as much in their planning documents

Again, care to provide any reference backing this claim up? Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

All serious estimates of civilan deaths in Afghanistan suggest a number around 1,100 -- see the section on civilian casualties at the end of this article for details.

The fact is, we've put a tremendous amount of effort into making sure that we hit only the terrorist network which did this to us, and did not hit civilians, including putting our own men on the ground in harm's way to designate targets, and providing so much food aid that more food was getting into Afghanistan during the air campaign than had gotten in at any time in the previous ten years.

Can you point me to any nation in the world's history that has fought a war so humanely?

The U.S. government has bombed 14 countries, directly killing about 3,000,000 people in the last 33 years.

Do you have any credible backing for this number? Do you have any comparable number of how many lives we've saved in our wars? For example, Ho Chi Minh's thufs killed more Vietnamese in the first three years of `peace' after the Vietnam war than had died in the entire previous twenty-five years of war. At least that many lives would have been saved had we stuck it out and won the war.

And as for `non-violent' solutions, may I ask you to explain what solution you think would resolve our current situation, where a multi-national group armed and sheltered by hostile national powers is working to gain access to weapons of mass destruction to use against us?

• the current bombing of Afghanistan, in which thousands of innocents have been killed -- these numbers have long since been debunked. See the bit at the end of this piece for details. Indeed, if anything, we have gone out of our way, including putting our own people on the ground at risk, in order to avoid civilian casualties.
• U.S. backed assassinations or attempts in Afghanistan, Cuba, Vietnam... -- Cuba I'll grant you (and this was the brainstorm of liberal icon Kennedy, of course). VietNam was a war (and a just one -- see below), and so is Afghanistan, so I'm not sure what your point is...
• the Gulf War -- what's your complaint here? That the US went to war to defend a nation which had been brutally siezed, and another that was in danger, at the request of the nations involved, and at the head of a multilateral coalition of a scale the world had hardly seen before?
• the VietNam war -- again, what's your complaint here? The US went to war to defend a weak ally set upon by a bloodthirsty totalitarian neighbor. If you have any doubt that we were on the right side of this one, consider the fact that Ho Chi Minh and his thugs murdered more VietNamese in the three years after the war ended than had died in the preceeding 25 years of war. No, the only tragady of VietNam is that the three US presidents involved were too arrogant to explain to the people why the war was needed, so we lost our will to win it...
• conscription -- leaving aside that we haven't drafted anyone for years, there are strong arguments on either side of this one. There are certainly circumstances under which the draft would be acceptable and necessary, so we are left only to argue about whether it has been used well in the past.
• McCarthyism -- now a whole mythology has grown up around this one, so I think it's reasonable to point out a few facts:
  • The US was in fact heavily infiltrated by Soviet spies in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. This is confirmed by Soviet and American documents declassified at the end of the cold war.
  • In our current Manichean fable of that era, the (in reality quite small) number of peopls who lost jobs over their connections to the Communist Party has been greatly exaggerated.
  • Due to Joe McCarthy's grandstanding and publicity-seeking, the quite real issue of Communist infiltration has been discredited unfairly -- indeed, President Truman remarked that "the greatest asset the Kremlin has is Senator McCarthy." Because of his excesses, any attempt to point out the great extent of very real infiltration which did occur is now easily hand-waved aside with a simple drop of a name.
• support for oppressive states like Israel, Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia I'll give you, but in what sense is Israel, a free democracy with equal rights for all of its citizens, `oppressive'? Even with the Saudis, we didn't create them, and I like to hope that we'd support any non-fundamentalist alternative to their regime.
• support for dicators in Iran, Iraq, Chile, Nicaragua, the Philippines... -- not all of these stand (in particular, with the end of the cold war, we now know that the CIA was as taken by surprise by the coups in Iran and Chile as anyone else was), but the larger issue is that, yes, sometimes we backed the lesser of two evils. What would you propose we should have done? I'm also amused that Nicaragua, where the US backed rebels who fought for and won free democratic elections makes your list...
• concentration camps for Americans of Japanese descent -- you have chosen the word `concentration camp' carefully for connotations which do not fit the subject at hand, but the point is the same. Yes, these were a terrible abuse, but they were also a reaction to the very real fact that there were spies operating in the Japanese-American community. In particular, Pearl Harbor was planned based on intelligence from American citizens of Japanese descent.
• COINTELPRO -- there is a lot of rumor and propaganda surrounding a very small number of actual abuses in this area. Care to provide reasoned cites (not lefty conspiracy-theory rags)?
• Hiroshima, and even more so Nagasaki -- what's your complaint here? Many Americans, and even moreso many more Japanese than died in these two cities would have died in an island-by-island invasion of the Japanese homeland. This was averted. Looks like a good move to me...
• one of the world's largest prison populations -- we're actually pretty far behind China, but this is not the point. A high prison population proves nothing by itself, so if you want this to sound scary, you have to show not that we are putting people in prison, but that we are putting people in prison unjustly.
• the War on (some) Drugs -- I'm sure we're in some agreement here -- remember that just about the only mainstream voices calling for a reversal of Marijuana policy are coming from within the conservative movement, in the pages of publications like the Wall Street Journal and National Review.
• the "enemies" list -- Nixon's or Clinton's?
• the fiasco at Waco -- I think I'd use a stronger word than `fiasco' for this one, and I suspect we're largely in agreement. I still hope that some day we will see trials of many of those involved, right up to Janet Reno.
• racial segregation (including laws still on the books in some states) -- it doesn't accomplish anything to point out that laws are `still on the books' (though you should provide a cite for this, as I haven't seen this claimed before), as any law which violates the constitution is a legal nullity, and the fourteenth ammendment is very clear on this matter.
• babies to be taken from their parents ... children were compelled to attend boarding schools -- do you have any cite on this happening in recent history?
• imprisonment of Leonard Peltier -- the problem with this claim is that like Mumia Abu Jamal, Peltier is guilty as charged, and was convicted with clear evidence. Being a posterboy for conspiracy-theorists does not of itself make you innocent, you know...
• football team carrying a racial slur for a name, -- except that in poll after poll American Indians themselves have stated that they do not consider such team names to be slurs at all. The only people who claim this are those who like you appoint yourselves to speak for others who never asked them to.

Is government a necessary evil? Yes, of course, and that is why systems like ours, with clear limits on the power of government, are essential.

I'd like to respond to some of your points, since plenty of what you're reporting is flat out wrong (and the mods should probably take note of that):

• we have "carpet bombed" plenty in Afghanistan -- nonsense. Even the Taliban didn't bother to claim this one, as it's obviously untrue, so why do you? We dropped many bombs on troop positions in the field, but always in close coordination with ground forces in the area to ensure maximal accuracy. See, among many other references this article for more.
• Carpet bombing is pretty much all a B-52 is good for -- your information is about two decades out of date. With modern GPS technology, a properly equipped B-52 can drop even a `dumb' bomb in a 10-meter diameter circle, based on coordinates radioed in from the ground realtime.
• Second, U.S. troops are not particulary in harm's way. -- wow, I'm floored by this whole paragraph of yours. You're complaining that US troops are too well equipped, and you're upset that they don't put themselves in more danger? How odd.
• What about the thousands [cursor.org] of civilian deaths in Afghanistan? -- these numbers have been discredited so many times, I'm getting tired of posting this link, but for one more time, see the section on civilian casualties at the end of this article for details.
• Do you think that the attacks on the World Trade Center were designed to maximize civilian casualties -- yes, I do. But don't take my word on it -- Mr. Bin Laden says the same thing in his tapes.
• I would argue that the World Trade Centers are a "dual use" target -- so it's clear for any readers who may not have realized the bankrupcy of your position -- are you really arguing that the September 11 attacks were acceptable?
• Casualties from that one eclipse 9-11, though it might not seem in since they occur over a generation, not in a single day. -- care to provide a reference to that one? No, I suppose not, since you apparently stopped reading after that article. As is well known, the plants in question have been rebuilt as part of the oil-for-food program which the US signed on to. But it certainly is true that there are people starving in Iraq -- what you miss is that they starve because Mr. Hussein diverts the relief shipments he receives to pay for palace-building and other megalomaniacal schemes. See this article for more on Mr. Hussein.
• My beef is people like you, who are ignorant about the fact that we have killed more of their civilians than they did on Sep. 11. -- ignorant of your half-baked conspiracy theories, sure. Again, please read the spectator.co.uk article above.
• Rationalize it all you want, civilians die in wars. We don't have any claim to the moral high ground just because we lost 3,000 civilians last year. -- no, we have the moral high ground because we are a free nation which was brutally attacked by terrorists, and are fighting to defend ourselves. The moral ground doesn't get much higher than that.

Civilian death toll from 11th September: ~3000
Civilian death toll from bombing of Afghanistan: ~3200

The numbers you are citing have been thoroughly discredited -- see the bit on civilian casualties at the end of this article for details.

At any rate, this is beside the point. In Afghanistan, we are doing our utmost to avoid civilian casualties by putting brave men in harms way, on the ground, to pinpoint targets to be hit. In contrast, the September 11 terrorists did their utmost to maximize the number of civilians killed. Surely you can see the difference?

Those numbers have been discredited a long time ago. See the section on civilian casualties at the end of this article for details.

More importantly, this is beside the point. In Afghanistan, we are doing our utmost to avoid civilian casualties by putting brave men in harms way, on the ground, to pinpoint targets to be hit. In contrast, the September 11 terrorists did their utmost to maximize the number of civilians killed. You don't see a difference?

Here.

``In the Scientific American critique, four leading environmental scientists lambasted Lomborg. The magazine refused Lomborg the right to reply in the same issue, refused to post his response on its website immediately, and threatened him for infringement of copyright when he tried to reproduce their articles, with his responses, on his own website.

Yet the Scientific American articles are devastating not to Lomborg, but to his critics. Again and again, before insulting him, the critics concede, through gritted teeth, that he has got his facts right. In two cases, Stephen Schneider accuses Lomborg of misquoting sources and promptly does so himself. In the first case, Schneider's response 'completely misunderstands what we have done', according to Richard Lindzen, the original author of work on the 'iris effect' and upper-level cirrus clouds. In the second, Eigil Friis-Christensen says that Schneider 'makes three unsubstantiated statements regarding our studies on the effect of cosmic rays on global cloud cover'. Result: there are worse howlers in Schneider's short article than in Lomborg's whole book.''