It is worse to kill several people than a single person, and it is worse to target civilians, instead of soldiers. The Iraqi civilians are collateral damage, so in this context it is hard to make a fair comparison, imo. It will be very subjective.
Also, I have a problem with discussing many Iraqi or Afghan, collateral civilians w/o discussing the wars themselves, regardless of if we compare to 9-11, and it is political, even if I agree more with Jermofoot, I can’t see it not being political. But I like political discussions, so I vote for not closing the this thread. Or can we call it a military discussion instead of political?
Also Churchill ordered killing of civilians during WW2. But Stalin was worse than all those other mentioned in this thread.
During the Spanish campaigns in South America 500 years ago, there were more South Amercian people killed by infectious disease, than by Spanish guns and swords.