I don't think that civilian casualtis as a result of airstrikes in Iraq has been an issue for long time,. It is pretty much just bantering from the Anti war crowd.

 

Civilian casualties are in fact a result of the sectarian violence, and our illustrious press at every available moment just likes to blame it on coalition forces

From reading articles on the subject it seems that every coalition operations kills scores of civilians, but few terrorists, according to media sources going through the area or conducting surveys a day or two after the fighting. Apparetly these folks belive insurgents have no respect for thier dead (I would think most would perfer to carry off thier comrades to give them a decent burial than let the corpses rot on the ground), unlimited ammo and weapons (most insurgents who can't carry off thier dead would probably at least save the ak-47s and ammo; effectively turning the body of a slain insurgent into an innocent civilian corpse when the news crews come in the next day) and the intelligence of the three stooges (its probably a better idea to tell hospital staff that your wounded friend was "caught in the crossfire" instead of "got shot while trying to set up an IED"). But of course we all know that a journalism degree from crapsburg U makes one an expert in insurgent tactics and techniques. Just some food for thought.

theBird,

The problem is that "civilian" is not the correct terminology that should be used, and the media blows this quite often.  Instead, non-combatant/combatant is the dichotomous terminology that should be used.  In terms of how often the media gets it wrong because of using the terminology of "civilian," it is frequent.  There are other cases where the media reports both sides of the story and simply report the dispute over the status.  And, there are cases where those civilians killed are clearly non-combatants.  So, it's a mixed bag, and there is no standard answer.  Instead, it must be looked at in a case by case fashion.

so is the counter argument here that there are a buttload more insurgents than there appears to be?  it is a rule that insurgency and civil war situations in urban areas cause lots of noncombatant casualties by the nature of the conflict.  It may not be as high as media reports but it probably isnt that far off....if the insurgents have any brains in their heads they actually use civilians to get higher body counts, tactics like getting an agry mob together, then opening fire from within the mob knowing that the defenders have to shoot into a crowded area to defend themselves, ect.  Remember that these people dont just use the civilians as cover, they use them as unwitting cannon fodder for attention getting purposes.

I haven't checked in awhile, but the statistics of dead "civilians" used to be disproportionately military age males.

Anyways, it's like home team advantage.  The dead "civilians" are automatically innocent because the Media wants a good story with lots of dead innocents, preferably children so the body can be paraded around for maximum media exposure.

Fighting this war for public opinion is like going into a championship game of texas holdem knowing the dealer has marked every single card and that you are going to lose.  The story doesn't write itself, the writer INTERPRETS it as he wishes according to whatever biases he has picked up in his life.

HMMMMMMMM  -  Same as with PALI deaths and casualties. Coincidence? Kinda makes you stop and wonder why we arent making more of this little notion.

 

Basic stats would suggest an even distribution across all demographic strata - this isnt the case, unless you look at Israeli civilian deaths and casualties - as has been reported here before.

 

swhitebull

I haven't checked in awhile, but the statistics of dead "civilians" used to be disproportionately military age males.

Anyways, it's like home team advantage.  The dead "civilians" are automatically innocent because the Media wants a good story with lots of dead innocents, preferably children so the body can be paraded around for maximum media exposure.

Fighting this war for public opinion is like going into a championship game of texas holdem knowing the dealer has marked every single card and that you are going to lose.  The story doesn't write itself, the writer INTERPRETS it as he wishes according to whatever biases he has picked up in his life.

 

Of course 70% of Iraq's population is under 35, and women don't work, or go outside much...so for obvious reason you are left with a disproportionate amount of "military-aged males" who are outside working/looking for work/smoking shisha, etc. and thus targets of militias/insurgents.

Anyways, it's like home team advantage.  The dead "civilians" are automatically innocent because the Media wants a good story with lots of dead innocents, preferably children so the body can be paraded around for maximum media exposure.

Fighting this war for public opinion is like going into a championship game of texas holdem knowing the dealer has marked every single card and that you are going to lose.  The story doesn't write itself, the writer INTERPRETS it as he wishes according to whatever biases he has picked up in his life.

look, a high civilian death count doesnt need to be explained away by some media conspiracy.....If you are a terrorist insurgent bastard you want a lot of civilian casualties so one of the ways to accomplish that is to purposely put civilians in jeapordy, THATS why its high.  It doesnt mean our troops are bad, it is just an enemy that uses the civilian populace to make a high body count....nothing we can do about that except call it for what it is so that everyone will remember that the dead civilians are because of the insurgents, not because of us!