No, it does't mean that at all.
Re: "No bombing means no collateral damage". Where did you get that funny rule? When something explodes, some people can be hit no matter what, of course.
But consider this, when a suicide bomber blows up another cafe in Jerusalem, do you hear of "bombing of Jerusalem"? No, you hear of bombing in Jerusalem. Same thing here. Why go on and on and on about the same bs ? I'm not arguing about abstract semantics, I'm pointing out the good doctor's disingenuousness and his word-twisting in his preposterous quest to make Bush look like some a kind of sadistical monster. A bit far out, I think -- and the good doctor knows it himself, so he's playing with words to make it look less so.
One more time: the "bombing of Baghdad" implies massive casualties, something like firebombing of Tokio (100,000 dead), Dresden, and similar. Contrary to the good doctor's allusions, nothing like that has happened in Baghdad this time around. End of story.
Btw, from your link -- "The figure of 207 civilian casualties has been issued by the ministry of information". That would be Saddam's ministry of information, with "Comical Ali" Al Sahaf at the helm ("Never! Never!"TM.) At any rate, even if these numbers are right, it's not Dresden or Tokio or Coventry. When you realize this, the doc's verbiage becomes nonsensical.