I don't think you need me to explain what it means Derek, you appear to be a bright enough sort of chap to sort it out yourself.
However, in any war that I can recall, innocent civilians, men, women and children are killed purely by being in the location of the war zone. Modern weapons can be discriminate, but only up to a certain extent.
Innocent civilians may have been killed by soldiers in the current fighting (probably were) and I can't condone that, but never having been in a combat situation I also find it difficult to judge them, not knowing the circumstances. Whether they have been targeted or have not by soldiers, it doesn't run into hundreds a day.
Like you and many others on here, I would prefer the conflict to be between the insurgents and the soldiers, but war isn't as straightforward as that unfortunately. Todays methods used by the US etc are far more discriminate than those used in wars from our recent history and suicide bombers and car bombs, the preferred method of the terrorist, kills a fair number of innocent bystanders as well.
I can't really see the comparison between a situation such as above and the kidnapping of an unarmed person at gunpoint and eventually shooting or beheading them with their hands behind their backs. Both are regrettable, one is unavoidable.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to me how the former can be avoided, unless of course there is no war to start with, but then we both live in a real world, I think?