Rage some more lol.

You dont like the fact that the numbers don't support your argument. I get it. But cherry-picking a few numbers to defend it doesn't work either. You're not kidding anyone.

Now for some serious questions that you won't hear on Fox News, or any American TV channel for that matter:

Who was the US defending itself from in Iraq II? What % of Americans supported the idea of Iraq II when it was decided to go ahead with it?

What was the justification for killing > 100k civilians (presumably most of whom weren't planning a suicide trip to the US anytime soon, since they were generally a bit busy at the time ducking for cover)? They just get in the way? Collateral damage to make a point? How is that any different from what these people are arguing is ok to DEFEND their religious beliefs? Also please make note of the importance of the word DEFEND here and how it contrasts with an "attack without provocation."

Now go tell me who is a bigger threat to my world's peace: A religion where people think it's ok to defend themselves, or an entire country where it's so easy to hoodwink people into supporting an unjust war that killed >100k innocent people that it was never in doubt whether they could go ahead with it or not?

Why is it a concern for a religion to be violent but not a country? Do you know how many people died in WWI and WWII? Do you know what WWI and WWII were about, and who started them? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Islam, or even religion at all, that got those little kerfuffles underway.