The other idea is that drone strikes are based on fuzzy images and are largely indiscriminate. How does that compare with other military strikes? Okay, someone killed a man because he was tall... does that kind of decision making not happen with soldiers on the ground? There is indeed cause to be careful with such technology, it is easy to see how it could more easily misused than soldiers on the ground. It is also to see how enemy combatants would hate this technology and cry 'no fair!', but reports need to be based on data not speculation posited as fact.
a) Al-Jazeera was equipped and trained by BBC, our "special friends" the Brits. They are indeed proud of their little project. [1] b) is run by the same "country" -- insert laugh track here -- that hosts the Al-Udeid Air Base from which these some of these little robots take off. (PressTV is also mostly produced in UK, for your information.) An informed* man once said "Be wise as serpents". For we are dealing with serpents, so pay attention. -- So why is this little psyop station affiliate of BBC dumping on UK's "special friend"? For the same reason that they insist on calling America "an Empire" and attempt to hang all of the blame for NATO's expansionist agenda on the American people. [1]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6106424.stm [edit: minor cleanup]
[edit2: *forgot that he disapproved of being called 'good'.]
Drones need to broadcast a signal. If you could find that signal and then broadcast on it, it should make them sad. This piqued my interest: "There are some 4,800 Ravens in operation in the Army, although plenty get lost." More on this later. I guess we have to wait.