Turn on thread page Beta

Why does the media rarely ever cover civilian casualties? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) recorded 800 Afghan civilian deaths between January and May 2009 alone, representing an increase of 24% over the same period in 2008. I bet you can guess roughly how many soldiers have died within the past few weeks, how many could have guessed how many civilians died? It is estimated that around 30,000 civilians have died as a result of the war since the invasion in 2001.

    Shockingly, these numbers are only the tip of a mountain in comparison to the figures associated with the Iraq invasion. However if the deaths of a few soldiers recently can trigger a public debate on why we're actually in this war, it's effects on the people of Afghanistan, it's purpose to eradicate terrorism - we're only now beginning to question it's effectiveness, then why is that the price the Afghan people on the streets have paid barely mentioned?

    There was an outcry when 5 soldiers died within a short period of time. In Iraq, they sometimes have those numbers passed the 100 mark in one single explosion. In Afghanistan, we see that in the dozens. Yet never really mentioned or talked about.

    This fact was brought up in a recent debate on Newsnight by an anti-war protester yet never really talked at length at. The British and especially American media rarely touch upon the civilian casualties in these wars. Compare that to the attention they get in the Middle East and it's not surprising the different attitudes to these wars we have here in comparison to over there.

    Is it bias? Is it a form of propaganda? Or is it simply irrelevant?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Civilian casualties are a tool to demonize. Why would we demonize ourselves?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    Civilian casualties are a tool to demonize. Why would we demonize ourselves?
    If we can question an entire war based on a few soldiers dying, then it makes no sense to dismiss the amount of innocent people dying as a result of the war you've waged. What it would further do is highlight to the public the consequences of war. Maybe public opposition to the Iraq invasion would have been high enough if both the US and British public knew just how much the war took from Afghans.

    It hasn't been generations, even centuries, since an enemy brought the war to our own turfs. Perhaps we've become too desensitised to what war really is.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    War almost always causes more civilian deaths than military deaths.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    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.
    Correlation =/= Causality
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think you are correct. Civilian deaths in the Iraq war in particular were reported extensively. And, of course, there was a lot of coverage of Abu'Grahib. People are a bit bored of hearing about civilian casualties now. The recent deaths of soldiers gained particular coverage 1) because they were so heavy and demonstrate how severe the fighting in Helmand is; 2) they demonstrate the Taliban's use of road-side bombs which may require a change in tactics; 3) because people are using the opportunity to criticise the government
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    People generally worry about their own kind before others, its human nature, and as for civilian casualties I would say they are reported when appropriate, for example when their deaths are at the hands of ISAF forces.

    The simple fact is that the vast majority of civilian casualties are at the hands of the insurgents, which makes it hardly newsworthy due to the simple fact everyone knows they get upto it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meus)
    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?
    Tbh this is old news. As has been said previously, the civilian toll has always been discussed at great length in the media from the very beginning. I remember a few years ago when they were having serious big discussions on it.

    As for questioning the war, it's just that 8 UK soldiers died in the space of a week which was unlike before, so naturally questions were raised about poor equipment or whether the taleban are indeed getting stronger.

    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    War is inevitable.

    There woudn't be any world peace, if war didn't happen first.

    Civilian casualities aren't mentioned by the media, because then we ourselves would be admitting to defeat.

    But, when the invading country's soldier casualities are reported, there is an international outcry.

    It's just a plan for world domination.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    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/Civilia...2%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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilia...2%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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    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 :lolwut: All our boys and girls are dying for nowadays is to clean up the mess our governments created in the 80's.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've noticed this. The amount of time they dedicate to other trivial news is preposterous.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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 :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/wo...s-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. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-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. :rolleyes:

    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    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 ********" :rofl:

    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Thats Your counter argument. "I smell ********" :rofl:

    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
    I didn't skim through wiki :confused: You're the one who quotes it :rofl:

    Listen man, I think you need to read more indepth studies of Afghanistan's overall history. From the colonial days of British India to now. You will see what a divided lawless state it was. Yes the King was deposed, but it was NOT democracy after :rofl: A blood thirsty leader with marxist type ideas had aligned themselves closer to the USSR who them became involved to keep them in power. The US acted accordingly. Obviously in hindsight, supporting the mujahidn was wrong, but not at the time with what USSR was doing.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.