And so the debate droans on.

It's funny how people build up a shell in which to hide their ability to call on their common sense when issues of an ideological nature impinge their sensibilities. The world is full of "goodies" and "baddies" and we tend to line up behind one or the other. Once we are in the queue it's difficult to see outside the specific bubble.

So we have the genuine pacifists complaining about the use of Drones to bomb and cause the inevitable death of innocent civilians without fearing the very people who are the target of the drone attacks. To them the issue is that the civilised world has little or no leeway when it commits itself to taking on the bad guy. The superstition is that the world is potentially a good place and if only everyone believed what the pacifist believed, that there is no place for violence.
The other side have a more gung ho attitude to solving problems. Their concern or lack of concern about the euphemism, collateral damage is exemplified in their hatred of the opposition to their steady state world and the satisfaction they get for living in it. The drone is the perfect vehicle for keeping the status quo in place since it exposes no one to any danger, other than the people who incidentally look and have similar surnames to the bad guys.

How do we equate the people killed by a drone, which is an attack on the people who also kill innocent people, when they commit placing a bomb around the body of some brainwashed child to explode it in a busy market place.
It's not even an eye for an eye since the bulk of those who die are oblivious to the causes which are being played out on either side.
Much of this is lost on the debaters since seeing the other side is an ideological anathema.