On two kinds of drones

Amnesty International UK Campaigns Director Tim Hancock raised some stink regarding the sale of "30 Watchtower [it is Watchkeeper actually] WK450 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)" by Israeli Elbit to British army. Here are some of things he says (according to Sky News):

Amnesty International has documented the role of drones in serious human rights violations by the Israel Defence Forces in Gaza.

Hmm... meaning like these drones are so intelligent as to take a role in human rights violations... and I thought that drones don't kill people, only people could... all right, it must be a lesson to me.

There is already growing international concern over the use of drones in remote unlawful killings, sometimes amounting to extrajudicial executions.

Interesting, that. The drones are used almost daily, offing several "suspects" per hit in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq. I haven't noticed any especial outcry from Amnesty lately. Have you? Would it be that this "growing international concern" is somehow multiplied when the Little Satan is "concerned"?

It would seem wholly inappropriate for UK forces to be trained in the use of drones by a country with a track record of applying this technology in grave abuses of people's human rights.

It could be easily pointed out that the reality is exactly the opposite of what Tim here tries to present: it is when means like UAVs are not used that the more serious violations occur. Does the term "carpet bombing" mean something to Tim, I wonder?

Well, all these things could be pointed out to anyone and almost by anyone. But only if the pointee is ready to listen. Which I tend to doubt in this case. So, I wish the British army luck using these UAVs when they need them and for what they need them. Oh, and Tim:

Smile, ijit!