When you drop a bomb from 10.000 feet there's a high possibility of hitting civilians.The alternative is simply not going to war,not to defend yourself,not to fight for what you believe in.People who answered that point realise this,they've only said that they know that in a war civilian casualties will exist and they accept that.You can't have war without civilians getting hurt however much you try to avoid it.The situation is vastly different when you're blowing yourself up amongst innocents,that is no mistake,that is an intentional act.Westerners accept the reality that in war innocents may die,those muslims understand the reality that civilians must die.
You are horribly mistaken if you think THAT is the only way civilian deaths are judged in the minds of those that voted that it is justified or that, that is the only way the civilised conventional militaries total up their civilian tolls. The rules of engagement are always drawn up based on what kind of enemy and what kind capabilities they're dealing with.
So let me give you an example, when one is able to defeat it's enemy head on without any need for targeting civilians, it won't. When it is convenient to do so, it will. That's how the Vietnam war began as something not so devastating, taking the NVA head on. it ended with desperate attempts to dislodge the Viet Cong, ending with the carper bombing of Laos killing millions, use of weapons like agent orange. Now the crimes of the world war some people still justify, I've come across Brits and Americans who justify (wrongly) the bombing and destruction of Dresden days before the surrender of Germany, and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
A taliban suicide bomber won't regret blowing himself in a market place if he sees a soldier or two as his target. A US drone operator will get the green light to take out a compound containing a 'suspected' militant regardless of what children of other civilians may be present and they often are. And that is despite the massive disparity and technological advantage.
Now, granted, the taliban sometimes aims directly for civilians. And the US, tries, sometimes to a void civilian deaths, other times it weighs up the gains and goes ahead.
But, why should I hold the taliban (nut cases) to the same standard as I hold a UN mandated war by the most advanced military in the world who's primary role is nation building and who's military is accountable to all for upholding the values of freedom and righteous liberties?
Take the situation where if the TTP in Pakistan blow up places and kill children, they do, that's them. But if I heard that our military has caused deaths, it does happen, though we are FAR more careful than our allies from the West... when it does happen, my reaction will not be just 'sh*t happens, it's war.'... no, find out how it happened, why it happened, who is to be held responsible, and make sure to find a way to make it never happen again.
There's also another reason why I hold the US in this particular war to a higher standard, Obama said long ago that this is a war of hearts and minds, it is, and every civilian death scores major points for the terrorist and their recruit base. Every death at the hands of a talibastard is a martyrdom and serves to destroy their cause by unpopularity among people, every death at the hands of those who need to be held accountable is a sad fate that may lead to further death.
