Question Author
I would quite happily endorse this sentiment of yours, Keyplus, so that rather takes the wind out of those particular sails of yours, doesn't it?
“I condemn killing of all and any innocent person of any age, sex, race or religion, who belong to any country and lives anywhere, by anyone individual or an army.”
As Naomi points out though, the devil is always in the detail. Who gets to define innocence?
There are not 2 types of Taliban. There is one taliban movement that crosses the national borders between afghanistan and pakistan, and zealously promotes a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, resulting in deliberately targeting a young girl for being outspoken about wanting an education. Such extremist interpretations are invidious and loathsome. Instead of condemning such organisations though, you try to mitigate it by claiming some sort of conspiracy.
Again, as Naomi has pointed out, those drone strikes that have killed civilians and children were targeted at alleged combatants, and were tragically the collateral damage of a war. Myself I think the US are not morally justified in the extent of drone strikes they have employed in sovereign states with whom they are supposedly allies - I regard drone strikes as immoral in almost all circumstances -but you cannot equate accidental collateral damage, however tragic and grevious, with a policy of targeted termination of those that are perceived as a threat to your ideology merely by speaking their mind and challenging your ideology.