Re: [OT] Question from the news

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:36:09 -0500, "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
wrote:

>PS - Is anyone else annoyed that they keep 
>differentiating servicemen and women on 
>combat operations killed in aircrashes etc. 
>"accidental" casualties as differentiated from 
>"combat" casualties? That really burns my butt. 
>The distinction will be largely lost upon the 
>families I suspect. 

I don't see much of a problem differentiating them. It's because of the
high
numbers of casualties due to friendly fire and mechanical problems
during the
1st Gulf War (as most Americans refer to what others call the 2nd Gulf
War;
the 1st Gulf War in that case is known by many as the Iran-Iraq War). 

I understand the reason why TomB is steamed at this, but from a
reporting
point of view it's actually an important differentiation. I don't think
it
denigrates the person's sacrifice at all. When telling what happened you
have
to explain the situation (accident versus enemy action versus friendly
fire).
When summing the casualties, it's important for us to know how many
people
were hurt from enemy action and how many were hurt from "preventable"
causes.
For me, it only serves to outline the fact that soldiering is a
hazardous
profession even when you are nowhere near the frontline. It makes _me_
appreciate soldiers more, and I find the accidental deaths more tragic
than
those from taking fire.

I can see TomB's point, but I guess I see it differently. What bugs me
is how
some reporters still don't understand that casualty does not equal
"dead".
Casualties are those killed, missing, and wounded...

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@hyperbear.com
http://www.hyperbear.com

"The only normal people are the ones you don't know 
well!" - Joe Ancis