It’s a shame when quite interesting debates turn into a slanging match.
The problem is with these sorts of debates is that there are such polar opposites of opinion that you will never reach a middle ground.
I think one of the fundamental differences between the deaths of civilians in, say Afghanistan for example, and those in London is that in the latter there is a deliberate attempt to kill or injure innocent parties where generally in the other it occurs (rightly or wrongly) as collateral damage rather than as direct targeting of civilians.
Neither is any consolation for the people that lose a loved one I completely understand.
Part of the problem with an insurgency is that those involved will deliberately integrate themselves within the civilian population – either through cooperation or by force.
Not only does this action allow insurgents to hide, but they know that it put civilians are at greater risk from the ‘enemy’ forces, which, when the inevitable deaths of civilians occurs in western military operations it causes outrage in other parts of the world and radicalises more people to their cause.
So it’s win win for the insurgents and the only losers are the poor innocent souls that get tangled up in it.