>>>>...
>>>>>
>>>>>3000 people died at twintowers. Yesterday I read only civillian deads at 70.000 in Iraq. But anyone doesn't care with 70.000.
>>>>
>>>>I think the difference is that the dead at 9/11 were killed suddenly by fanatics not of their culture. In Iraq it's they killing each other - piecemeal.
>>>
>>>I suspect that U.S. and British troops/bombs killed their share.
>>>And I've also heard number way bigger than 70,000.
>>
>>That's as maybe. The point I'm making is the reason why there's outrage at the deaths of the victims of 9/11 is that it wasn't their own doing - they were suddenly attacked by another culture. Whether or not you argue that that's what we did to them in GW II, that's not the issue here with Metin. He's saying why aren't we mourning the greater no. of dead in Iraq. I presume some of that 70,000 were casualties of GW II but that hadn't taken place by 9/11, but was a direect consequence thereof.
>>
>>In essense the US were hit first, and powerfully so, another Pearl Harbour.
>
>President Bush has stated that Iraq had NOTHING to do with the World Trade Center destruction. (which, I (and the rest of the world) agreed, was another 'Pearl Harbour' and most deserving of retaliation).

So he was going to war anyway, despite there being no "War on Terror"?

>
>Iraq was, to use your own words "suddenly attacked by another culture". You may remember that only President Bush and his poodle felt any kind of justification in doing so.

I'm neither denying this nor justifying it. I'm keeping my comments to the subject of Metin's original statement.