Who is responsible for more innocent death? Bush or Al Qaeda?

[Ian_rd]

Poll question: Who is responsible for more innocent death? Bush or Al Qaeda?

Who is responsible for more slaughter and suffering of innocent people - The Bush Administration or Al Qaeda?

True, they feed off each other like the Israeli Government and Palestinian Terrorists, but I'm talking about direct responsibility.

Please kick it if you vote.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Lets count, shall we?

bush
iraqis: 30k (low) - 100k (high)
katrina: not conclusive

alqaeda
911: 3000
US soldiers: 2000


bush: min 30k, alq: max 5000

[calmblueocean]

12. You do realize that the IEDs there aren't planted by Americans, right?

Since the initial bombing campaign, most of the deaths of Iraqis have been from insurgents targeting them, not US forces. Look at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/">Iraqi Body Count, see how many of that 33,000 are due to roadside bombs and mass executions by terrorists.

[BlueEyedSon]

19. Yawn, the 100k estimate is from the Lancet and is US-caused casualties

[MisterP]

21. in mid-'04, counting civilians only, excluding the leveling of Falluja,

which they said doubled that number, and down from an initial result of TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND

[BlueEyedSon]

22. thanks MrP.... is it troll day at DU or what?

[demosincebirth]

17. Suicide bombers and car bombs kill many more. Do they count?

We're not the one walking around with explosives strapped to our belts.

[Dark]

2. Al-Qaeda by itself, perhaps not. But the ideaology behind it harms

more people (especially women and homosexuals) than America could.

[bryant69]

3. I don't know - I mean if America puts it's shoulder into it

I'm sure we could harm more people. You just need to keep a positive attitude.

Actually though, I'm not a big fan of either or comparisons - Al Qaeda sucks, and the Bush Administration sucks.

In theory we have more control over what America does, though.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[w13rd0]

7. Let's state the obvious...

...fundamentalists suck. They are dangerous. They believe that they are the elect of their god, and that all others should be brought under the sword. They breed intolerance, ignorance and mass murder. They always believe the ends justify the means.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. Right, and now that fundamentalist are in charge in the US.....

[Sammy Pepys]

4. Voted and kicked.

The answer is obvious.

[calmblueocean]

5. Let's not be daft.

Take away Bush and you still have civil war, suicide bombings, and a climate of theocratic fear in Iraq.

Take away the terrorists and you don't.

I'm sure there will be any number of folks coming out to defend al Qaeda as being more virtuous than Bush. Count me out of that little fantasy.

[moobu2]

6. There never was a suicide bombing in Iraq before Bush invaded.

No, no one is defending anyone. It’s just that Bush pretends to be morally superior to al Qaeda, when that just isn’t true. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has been responsible for many, many more women and children’s deaths than al Qaeda has.

[Just Me]

10. al Qaeda isn't in charge of Iraq,...the BushCO/neoconster regime is.

I don't like mixing these nuts up. Both are harmful/awful. However, one has the might of a major military force behind it and has, in fact, wreaked far greater death and sacrificed/usurped a helluva lot more of our national treasure.

One need not defend either of these regimes while facing the facts pertaining to which has caused greater death and destruction.

[BlueEyedSon]

11. Take away bush and we have an unpleasant dictatorial state, instead

we have a FAILED state. Which kind of state is a better breeding ground for terrorists?

Anyway, it would be a huge insult to our professional and technologically superior armed forces to suggest we couldn't kill more folks than a bunch of guys in caves.

[calmblueocean]

15. No disagreement with your first statement..

I'm not going to defend Bush. He definitely shares a lot of the responsibility for turning Iraq into the failed state it has become.

But I'm not going to use that logic to spin things so that Bush is more responsible for the IEDs than the terrorists who build, plant, and detonate them themselves.

[BlueEyedSon]

18. We created the environment that makes their operations possible, how is

that not "responsibility"?

We created a failed state in Iraq (Afghanistan to, but who's counting), and this is what happens when you turn a state into a failed one

[calmblueocean]

26. As I said

Bush shares a lot of the blame for turning Iraq into a failed state, but I'm not going to use that logic to spin things so that Bush is more responsible for the IEDs than the terrorists who build, plant, and detonate them themselves.

And by the way -- what's with the 'troll' crack up above? I may disagree with you, and I may not be at 1000+, but I've spent enough time here to show I'm no troll, and I'd appreciate being treated that way. Thanks.

[Swamp Rat]

13. Let's not be daft? OK, then why are you saying DUers will defend Al Qaeda?

Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq before Bushler bombed the country and destroyed their military, their defense AGAINST Al Qaeda. Removing Saddam CAUSED the civil war because he kept the rival religious and ethnic factions in check... and there were NO SUICIDE BOMBINGS in Iraq until AFTER Bushler invaded.

'Theocratic fear' is what we have in THIS country.

OK, you can go back to your fantasy world now. :hi:

[calmblueocean]

16. I don't disagree with any of what you wrote.

But the point of poll questions like this is essentially to push people to say that Bush is more evil than al Qaeda. I'm as angry and anguished about what Bush has done to both Iraq and the US as anyone here, but I'm not willing to minimize the wretchedness of al Qaeda and other Islamic theocratic terrorists just to score anti-Bush points. Let's hold each accountable seperately.

[demosincebirth]

23. You hit the nail right on the head on why the question was asked.

I echo you statement. Many here want to minimize what Al Queda really is. Its a bunch of sick islamic fundamentalists who have no regard for human life. Trying to compare bushco with Al Queda, is not flying with me.

[calmblueocean]

25. Thanks. I really hate when people try to divide DU like this.

I can hold Bush accountable AND al Qaeda, too. And so can most of the rest of DU.

[reichstag911]

14. Yes, let's not be daft.

"Take away Bush," and Saddam still keeps the opposing sectarian forces at bay.

"Take away the 'terrorists,'" -- some would consider these "terrorists" either patriotic Iraqis resisting an act of imperial aggression, or factionalists trying to gain the upper hand in post-occupation governance. The terrorists are the war criminals in Washington.

No one that I've seen or read has "defended" al Qaeda as "more virtuous than Bush"; an argument can certainly be made, however, that they have been given greater cause for their grievances and subsequent violence.

[madokie]

9. I would say the crawford coward hands down

[LisaLynne]

20. I'm sure Al Qaeda would LOVE to have killed as many people ...

as BushCo's policies, but they're not really in the same league monetarily or power-wise. I mean, if they had a big country that they were in control of, I'm sure they'd give BushCo a run for their money. Er, no pun indended.

[The Stranger]

24. The Power of Nightmares.