When she was 15, Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head on her school bus because she had publicly criticized the Taliban practice of banning girls from attending school in Pakistan.
That barbaric act has been universally condemned by Muslims, and considering Malala's complete recovery, you could argue God himself condemned it.
Well, after Malala's recent speech to the UN, she received a letter from a senior Taliban leader in which he tried to explain why she was targeted.
He said she had been supporting a school system in Pakistan originally set up by the British to create compliant English-speaking Pakistani puppets to serve the British empire. He urged her to instead support the type of Muslim education system that existed before British colonial rule.
Now to punish a 15-year-old for the sins of the British is ridiculous. But the letter also posed this question: What's the difference between the Taliban targeting her, and American drones targeting Muslims?
Coincidentally, on the same day that letter appeared, the New York Times published an Op-Ed by Nasser al-Awlaki. Mr Awlaki's son Anwar was on the CIA terrorist list, and was killed by a drone strike in 2011. But two weeks later his 16-year-old American grandson, who was not a terrorist, was having dinner at an outdoor restaurant in Yemen when he too was killed, along with six others - in a U.S. drone strike that has never been explained.
The guy from the Taliban at least wrote a letter. If the bad guys can do that, shouldn't the good guys?