It's kind of funny that the american press talks about "killed civilians" to keep it neutral.
Personally I find all this concern with language a little silly. For instance someone was attacking Fox for huge US bias because they sometimes say, "our troops" rather than "US Troops."
Anyway, I went to Google News (which indexes just news sites) Searching for "killed civilians" found that the vast majority were using "killed" as an active verb and not a passive adjective. i.e. It was almost always "US troops killed civilians." Indeed while I only went through about 60 examples, I couldn't find one example of of the adjective form you suggest was common in the American press.
May I suggest those claiming such things first check Google News before making such claims?
As for the second charge, that of the composition of the civilian deaths. What is your source? Further just because someone who dies is a woman that does not imply she is not a combatant. (Something many people have been asserting) Beyond the rather distasteful sexism inherent in such comments one need only point out that a significant portion of our own troops (including POWs) are women. Further there have been many reports of women acting as scouts and combatants. In some cases these women have reportedly even taken their children.
Yes that is horrible. Terrible.
Further you seem to suggest in your comments that a civilian death is somehow OK if it is a man but not if it is a woman. What a horrible thing to assert. Are you seriously saying that a male non-combatant is somehow less deserving of life than a woman? How horrible, not to mention sexist.
Personally I find all this concern with language a little silly. For instance someone was attacking Fox for huge US bias because they sometimes say, "our troops" rather than "US Troops."
Anyway, I went to Google News (which indexes just news sites) Searching for "killed civilians" found that the vast majority were using "killed" as an active verb and not a passive adjective. i.e. It was almost always "US troops killed civilians." Indeed while I only went through about 60 examples, I couldn't find one example of of the adjective form you suggest was common in the American press.
May I suggest those claiming such things first check Google News before making such claims?
As for the second charge, that of the composition of the civilian deaths. What is your source? Further just because someone who dies is a woman that does not imply she is not a combatant. (Something many people have been asserting) Beyond the rather distasteful sexism inherent in such comments one need only point out that a significant portion of our own troops (including POWs) are women. Further there have been many reports of women acting as scouts and combatants. In some cases these women have reportedly even taken their children.
Yes that is horrible. Terrible.
Further you seem to suggest in your comments that a civilian death is somehow OK if it is a man but not if it is a woman. What a horrible thing to assert. Are you seriously saying that a male non-combatant is somehow less deserving of life than a woman? How horrible, not to mention sexist.