Why does the media rarely ever cover civilian casualties?

Civilian casualties are a tool to demonize. Why would we demonize ourselves?

I would say that civilian loss does get coverage in the media. Every month the Iraqi govt reports how many civilians lost their life compared to the previous month, as well as number of insurgent attacks.

Important to note that a decrease in insurgent attacks has led to a sharp decline in civilian loss.

If the death toll on the civilian side is reported or known, as you all claim, then why is it that we are beginning to question the war only now on the basis of losses when a handful of soldiers die? You're all intelligent so please explain to me how that makes any kind of sense to you.

The logic here is when thousands of people die yearly, tens of thousands accumulatively - it's whatever. When the figure of British soldiers is highlighted to be a few hundred, and a dozen die within months, then we're all shaking our heads?

Is it because the people are Afghans? I mean how many Afghans would need to die, or Iraq's (close to a million) for people to start placing more emphasis on the amount of innocent people killed in these fruitless, questionable if not illegal, wars?

EDIT: As I mentioned before and someone else said it too, civilian losses are mainly due to suicide and car bombings by the insurgents. I fail to see how US forces are responsible for this. People were dying before in Iraq and Afghanistan under iron fisted regimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)


I know this is wikipedia but it has a pretty accurate table illustrating just how many innocents have died as a direct result of Nato aerial attacks, crossfire etc.. The Taliban do not attack Afghans with roadside bombs, what would be the point of that? Logically that is a big waste (unless of course it happens accidently but that doesn't happen ooften). They set roadside bombs to attack coalition forces which makes sense yes?

Oh and as for your other point about people dying beforehand, yes you are right, but you must also take into account the fact that American policy was responsible for the majority of those iraqi and Afghan deaths. Whether it was through the destruction of Afghanistan in the 80's that led to 2 millioin deaths or the sanctions and bombing of Iraq in the 90's that killed hundreds of thousands. The US is a lot more responsible than you seem to believe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8160604.stm

That is just today. Get a grip. They have attacked plenty of policemen, judges for helping making afghanistan better. Women singers/tv presenters are also targetted as they believe a woman singing in public is unislamic. They have bombed all girls schools because they believe it is unislamic for them to be educated. They have killed men for not having long enough beards.
Throwing in quotes from wiki is hardly credible-taleban are notoriously known to use human shields and inflate civilian losses for people like you to quote.

Do you have a source to back that up.

I am aware that the Taliban are tyrants, but it was your governments foreign policy in the 70's 80's and 90's that bought them into power. Are you just going to ignore this and preach to everyone how evil they are, and how much of an admirable job coalition forces are doing. Fighting for the greater good, lolwut All our boys and girls are dying for nowadays is to clean up the mess our governments created in the 80's.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/taliban-in-policy-shift-on-beards-and-burqas-1660013.html

Strict interpretation of Islam requires the beard to be fist length.

The rest of what you say is rubbish. In the 1980's the government identified the Mujahideen as the lesser of the 2 evils in comparision to Russia. Wrong or right, the govt did what it thought was best for its citizens.

Now the mujahideen are causing alot of problems in many western nations, so yes people who fight them deserve the respect of the public.

Right maybe it's time for a little history lesson.


In 1973 Afghanistan became a fully functioning and really quite liberal democracy, The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan promoted equal rights for women, freedom of Religion etc. It had very great potential as a nation. Hoowever America saw Afghnaistan only as a tool against the Soviets, and began manipulating and exploiting it's leaders and it's people, funding anti Soviet forces even though it was obvious this would provoke a reaction from the north at the expense of innocent Afghan lives. Surprise, surprise in 1979 the Soviets invade and full scale warfare ensues against the American funded Mujahadeen, which included a young Osama Bin Laden. Ten years later 2 million Afghans lay dead as the Soviets withdraw, America, believeing it's job to be done also leaves, just like that. Those same men who America had trained and armed to the teeth now run amok across the country, mass rapes occur, innocent civilians die by the thousand, men assume the title of warlord, but the west doesn't care anymore, Afghanistan is no longer worth a penny. It was this lawless and bitter society that welcomed the Taliban in the 90's for the Afghani people any kind of order was a relief from the chaos that America had caused. America and the west bought the situation in Afghanistan upon itself by carelessly exploiting developing countries around the world. Imagine how different life would be presently if the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan had survived.Our Governments are to blame for the current situation, for Al Qaeda, for Osama and for all of our brave soldiers returning home in boxes.


Please study this topic before throwing around inaccurate generalisations.

I smell bull****. I have responded to you in the other thread. Please study the history of Afghanistan before blaming America. There was a reason it was known as the wild wild west.

Thats Your counter argument. "I smell ********"

Here, please at least flick through these books.

Ghost Wars, Steve Coll- Recounts the CIA's involvement with Afghanistan and the Muj.

Afghanistan, a modern history- Does exactly what it says on the tin, in a non-biased way.

A Foreign policy of freedom: peace, commerceand friendship - A collection of congressional speeches by the representative of Texas, cronicling American foreign policy from 1973 until the present day. A very reliable and informative read, i would highly reccomend it.

There are many, many more. I suggest you at least have a look as judging from your above post you have just skimmed through the wikipedia article. Which as you said earlier is not the most reliable of sources