Nippelspanner

Of course.
Google.
I also like this one in particular.

Now before the all-time classic "google/random source =/= truth" card gets played by someone - I am aware of that after 15 years in the internet.
In the end, you gotta see for yourself what source you deem trustworthy or not. It is also funny that as soon as someone criticizes the drone program, some people start demanding sources.
When 'official sources' (military) claim numbers and facts regarding drones, these people usually don't question them.

The majority of articles I read about drone operations come to the same conclusion though: Too many civilian casualties.
Question is, why?

Surely not because you can't possibly expect civilians to be hit when putting a Hellfire missile or even a GBU into the dle of a village, a funeral or any crowded place.
I am all for the idea of surgical warfare, also I am very aware of the obvious fact that collateral damage will always exist, however I'm even more aware that prevention of civilian casualties should have priority - not the target.
Assuming the numbers (which vary a lot but are too high in any case) are even just half true, the current operational doctrine *might* be... 'faulty'.

Oh by the way. Go to Apacheclips or other pages like that (if you have a strong gut. It's a dark place, full of ignorance, stupidity and gore-freaks who lost touch with reality a long time ago...) and watch some drone strike material.
It speaks volumes, no need to read charts with numbers who might be true or totally made up.

That sounds a little like "wrong place, wrong time, too bad... on to the weather!".
If your loved one(s) get killed by a drone strike because your neighbor was a terrorist... mh...let's not go there, you see my point I'm sure.

Long story short, I get the feeling that certain lives seem to be taken for more valuable than others and most numbers clearly support this feeling.
Reading what some people wrote in this thread doesn't help.

Ah, let's cute to the chase and nuke 'em all.