This headline says it all about our friends at the Guardian:
The whole article deserves a sound Fisking, but the opening paragraph is particularly odious:
Now that the number of innocent civilian victims killed collaterally in Afghanistan by the US bombardments is equal to the number killed in the attack on the Twin Towers, we can perhaps place the events in a larger, but not less tragic perspective, and face a new question: is it more evil or reprehensible to kill deliberately than to systematically kill blindly? (Systematically because the same logic of US armed strategy began with the Gulf war.) I don’t know the answer to the question. On the ground, among the cluster bombs dropped by B52s or the stifling smoke in Church Street, Manhattan, perhaps ethical judgments cannot be comparative.
There you have it- Moral equivocation, reliance on dubious statistics, and a mixture of conjecture and dubious false truths. Didn’t someone already debunk the Marc Herold civilian casualty claims?
Oh yeah. That can be found here.
Repeat a lie often enough…
The rest of the article should be read at your own risk. Damn jackals.