In case anyone actually cares about facts, the Mail article linked by the OP flagrantly misrepresents what is in the Stanford/NYU report.
http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf
98% "innocent civilians" is nowhere in this report. It cites numerous statistics from various investigations and media reports. One such report says that only 2% of those killed were militant
leaders, while at least 20x more were foot soldiers. Most reports cited in this study show civilian casualty rates around 5-20%.
The report is highly critical of the drone strikes. However, the Mail has lied about its contents. It has to be a lie since the article is 5 days old and remains uncorrected.
Go back to your opinions by all means. This was just a brief reality check for those who do not like to check sources.
- wolf