“Any person suspected of ties with Qaeda is a target for drone strikes no matter what age or nationality.” 

This claim is a very terrible answer to a problem. Just because someone suspects that somebody is working with Qaeda, doesn’t mean that they are right. These precision drone strikes are deadly and affect more than just the individual. They must have sufficient evidence to show that this target is worthy of being eliminated. Even so, there are more tactical and safe ways of eliminating a target. One example may be by a recon team. Snipers have been used in the military for quite a while now and have very high kill rate. This method would reduce the unnecessary deaths that drone strikes create. Drone strikes are not a good option for eliminating key targets, they are just an imprecise option.

The author made a very effective claim in the article. He or she revealed that not only is the president killing innocent civilians to eliminate one or two key Qaeda targets, but they are willing to kill children without any thought.

Drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants; in his 2010 guilty plea, Faisal Shahzad, who had tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square, justified targeting civilians by telling the judge, “When the drones hit, they don’t see children.”

This claim makes a huge point to the president. The terrorist explains how the president and him are both very similar, they both kill civilians after all. This is eye opening, it makes you think about how someone who is willing to kill innocent people is being sent to jail for hopefully life, is similar to the president that we voted for. How is this moral or fair? 

The author makes a brilliant counterpoint to the use of drone strikes. Killing civilians is what evil people do, not what the government of the united states should be doing. If we are using terrorism to fight terrorism, then we have already lost. What we were fighting against has now become the daily for any man with a drone and control panel.