> 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] inst

> 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.