The killing of civilians is a result of a war of imperial conquest

[HysteryDiagnosis]

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/06/afghanistan-why-civilians-are-killed/#more-33509

Apologists for the NATO killings of civilians are as abundant as their explanations are lacking in substance. Pentagon spokespeople speak of “accidents”, “errors of war”, “collateral damage”; media pundits blame the guerrilla fighters for engaging in warfare in areas populated by civilians; neo-conservative academics and their “think tank” colleagues blame Islamic fundamentalism for converting villagers to their cause and “forcing” NATO to kill civilians in order to create martyrs and to use their deaths as a recruiting device.

These patently superficial explanations raise more questions than answers, or in some cases, inadvertently refute the justification for the entire war. The “error of war” argument begs a more basic question: what kind of war is NATO-US engaged in that constantly finds the guerrillas ‘melting’ into the population, while the occupation breaks down doors and perceives each and every household as a possible sanctuary, or outpost of the resistance? What kind of military relies on high altitude fighter planes and pilotless planes directed from distant command posts to attack population centers, in which commerce, farming and household economies engage the population?

[aquart]

1. yada yada yada War is hell.

No shit.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Yes shit.... when you can't afford it, you don't understand it, and you don't give a shit

about the collateral damage.

[msongs]

3. gives us insight into the true morals and family values of the killers...and their religions nt

[malaise]

4. K &R

It's sickening watching the BBCs coverage of Libya versus their coverage of Syria. You'd never know that NATO was targeting the legitimate leader of a country and ignoring the citizens they are killing in the process.
Western Imperialism is on steroids.