http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Who killed the vast majority of those civilians?

The statistics don't tell that information.

Thanks to teacher, it now makes sense:

I agree that we should be saddened by civilian casualties in war. After World War II nations worked together to come up with a frame work to prevent civilian deaths during future wars. There are two basic categories of people during war: combatants and protected people.

Combatants, if they follow the laws of war, are immune from prosecution for waging war. If captured they can be held for the duration of the war and can only be punished for war crimes or violating camp rules after capture.

Protected people include POWs, wounded combatants, and civilians.

A big problem, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan is when the enemy violates the laws of war and co-locates its fighters and equipment with civilians. The legal affect of this is that the civilians lose their protected status and the enemy has violated the laws of war. The practical effect of this is that the Coalition has to factor in the political costs of collateral damage. Sometimes it is better to let the enemy survive than to kill civilians in the process of an attack- even if legal. In fact the Army's new counterinsurgency doctrine is heavily influenced by this idea.

Your anger should be directed at those who are putting the civilians in harms way.

I would submit that it is we who have put the civilians in harm's way by pursuing a war of aggression based on false pretenses.

And it's a bit late, but welcome to the forum, peter.