3 ms·

>insufficiently standardized reports In fact, a standard has been established: in 96% of the reports, civilians are simply not mentioned. The 'standard terms'

>insufficiently standardized reports In fact, a standard has been established: in 96% of the reports, civilians are simply not mentioned. The 'standard terms' are used instead: "terrorist" and "extremist". This is very disturbing - we, the public, are being lied to about how much civilian damage is being caused by our ignorance of the warriors who insist they must be allowed the freedom to kill anyone they want, without culpability. I, for one, hope to see more public oversight of the war-mongers, such that our daily efforts to produce more enemies in the war-torn regions of the world is brought to a minimum. (EDIT:s/94%/96%/)

AdamM12 8y ago
Intercept did a lot of good reporting on this. https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/
- fit2rule 8y ago
  Indeed that is a brilliant resource for those of us with an interest in the hidden machinations of the warrior classes. Seriously deep info.
  - AdamM12 8y ago
    Yeah I don't know what you mean by warrior class.
    - fit2rule 8y ago
      The class of people whose principle preoccupation is the fighting of war.
394549 8y ago
> In fact, a standard has been established: in 96% of the reports, civilians are simply not mentioned. > The[se] 'standard terms' are used [for civilians] instead: "terrorist" and "extremist". Apologies if my bracketed clarifications aren't what you meant, but it seemed clear from the context. Your latter point is hyperbolic and tendentious, and the OP doesn't go that far: > However, there is nothing within the term ‘terrorist’ or ‘extremist’ that indicates that a person is targetable under IHL. They are not legal terms, and, in the absence of additional facts, they do not indicate the reality of whether or not the person targeted in an air strike was a lawful target under IHL. That is not to say that those people are not targetable, but such a determination cannot be made without further information. Holding extreme views does not render a person liable to be killed, nor, necessarily, does membership of terrorist group. The core argument of the OP is that the existing reports are not standardized to include sufficient detail to come to kind of conclusions that you've jumped to: > While the MoD’s public reporting of air and drone strikes is to be welcomed and represents an attempt to provide transparency, it is currently falling short of what should be done in this area. We urge the MoD to improve its reporting in order to give greater public understanding and to improve accountability.

AdamM12 8y ago

Intercept did a lot of good reporting on this. https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/

fit2rule 8y ago
Indeed that is a brilliant resource for those of us with an interest in the hidden machinations of the warrior classes. Seriously deep info.
- AdamM12 8y ago
  Yeah I don't know what you mean by warrior class.
  - fit2rule 8y ago
    The class of people whose principle preoccupation is the fighting of war.

394549 8y ago

> In fact, a standard has been established: in 96% of the reports, civilians are simply not mentioned. > The[se] 'standard terms' are used [for civilians] instead: "terrorist" and "extremist". Apologies if my bracketed clarifications aren't what you meant, but it seemed clear from the context. Your latter point is hyperbolic and tendentious, and the OP doesn't go that far: > However, there is nothing within the term ‘terrorist’ or ‘extremist’ that indicates that a person is targetable under IHL. They are not legal terms, and, in the absence of additional facts, they do not indicate the reality of whether or not the person targeted in an air strike was a lawful target under IHL. That is not to say that those people are not targetable, but such a determination cannot be made without further information. Holding extreme views does not render a person liable to be killed, nor, necessarily, does membership of terrorist group. The core argument of the OP is that the existing reports are not standardized to include sufficient detail to come to kind of conclusions that you've jumped to: > While the MoD’s public reporting of air and drone strikes is to be welcomed and represents an attempt to provide transparency, it is currently falling short of what should be done in this area. We urge the MoD to improve its reporting in order to give greater public understanding and to improve accountability.