> We have statistics. We know the probable outcomes. Yes and no. Those things are possible if we have sufficient data, but I'm under the impression the way the

> We have statistics. We know the probable outcomes. Yes and no. Those things are possible if we have sufficient data, but I'm under the impression the way the CIA classifies a civilian vs. a combatant is inherently biased to reflect a much brighter outlook than a rational, detailed, slower, more careful approach would (although I have no hope for such an alternative). > but the average number of civilans killed per bomb is well known By whom? The CIA considers (considered?) every male of combat age in certain regions an "enemy combatant" or "militant" or something similar [1]. Under that definition, only women, children, and elderly _could_ be labelled as "civilians". What incentive is there to minimize harm to combat age men who are not "enemy combatants" when they are defined as such? The CIA (who I am under the impression controls most drone strikes in {Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia}) doesn't go collect DNA then forensically work the case for every person killed in their strikes as if there was a DNA collection of all terrorists. _They_ are the people expected to tally up the terrorist vs. civilian in your visualized scenario, yet they are the same people who refuse to distinguish between combat age males and combatants. You seem to be arguing that there is a moral high ground in trying to limit the number of innocents killed (which I agree with), but the article is about controlling media information. Perhaps your post would have been a reply to the grandparent post. [1] http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/ http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/