[robin_reala]

Unfortunately they’re also very effective at killing foreign nationals with nothing to do with any conflict. And if you reply with the weasel words “collateral damage” then, with all due respect, fuck you. (Sorry dang, I’ll take any downvotes as deserved, but this comment is unacceptable in my eyes).

[neolefty]

How much of your objection has to do with the technology, and how much with the conflict itself?

In other words, which question is more appealing:

* Given that we're in this conflict, what should we do?

* How can we prevent these kinds of conflicts in the future?

Those are very different conversations. Personally I'm more focused on the second one. But we have to take care of the first one too. And it's messy.

[robin_reala]

The answer for the second arises from the first, to whit “promiscuous killing of citizens radicalises survivors”. The invisible but entirely audible presence of the drone is a reminder that a foreign power has the ability to kill you at the touch of the button for no reason that you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that’s meant to protect people?