DEFENCE Secretary Michael Fallon says Parliament must rethink the “absurdity” of Britain being able to mount attacks on Isis terrorists in Iraq but not in Syria.

MPs might ask themselves why they should bother, since Monday’s grisly admission that our Prime Minister is happy to despatch killer drones to assassinate people whether the Commons has authorised such action or not.

Perhaps Fallon should “rethink” a few things himself, and he might understand why this distinction exists.

The Iraqi government has asked for Western assistance fighting Isis and invites air strikes on Isis positions.

The Syrian government is fighting an insurgency armed and funded by the West and dominated by Isis.

Despite the horrors perpetrated by these genocidal fanatics — the murders of civilian men, women and children, the slaughter of people for their religious beliefs or their sexuality, forced female genital mutilation and the systematic use of rape as a punishment — Western governments have still failed to face up to the reality that Isis will not be defeated without a co-ordinated approach including those fighting them on the ground, including the Syrian government.

Instead he prefers to launch murderous drones onto foreign territory without consulting that government. Like most drone strikes, this one involved “collateral damage.”

The target of the strike was 21-year-old Reyaad Khan from Cardiff, whom the government says was plotting terrorist attacks on Britain.

Two others were killed.

These have been described as fellow “Isis fighters,” and they very likely were, although we should always be wary of the way militaries describe their victims. In Afghanistan the United States has characterised any male of “military age” an “insurgent” to make its drone casualty list look less arbitrary.

But those who oppose the increasing use of death by robot are not doing so because we have a soft spot for people who join Isis.

This brutal death cult shows no compassion to anyone and people who travel from Britain to the Middle East to torture and murder the locals have no claim on our sympathy.

But Britain is taking steps along a very slippery slope. Assassination by drone has so far been mainly a US speciality.

Other countries have the ability to do it — China revealed in 2013 that it had considered using drones to kill Naw Kham, a notorious drug lord who had killed 13 Chinese sailors and who was hiding out in the jungles of south-east Asia beyond its borders.

But as the Public Security Ministry’s anti-drug chief Liu Yuejin explained, the option was rejected. It was felt unacceptable to violate China’s neighbours’ sovereignty and it was deemed important that Naw Kham face trial for his crimes.

It took longer, but the suspect was seized in a joint operation with Laos, extradited to China, tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. No international laws were breached and no passers-by killed along with him.

By contrast the US drone programme has killed thousands, with estimates of civilian casualties varyingly placed at 40 to an astonishing 90 per cent of the victims.

Many are not in warzones and the constant litany of deaths reported in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan have done more to recruit terrorists than to eliminate them.

Washington has allocated to itself the right to kill anyone it defines as a threat — along with whoever might be in the same place at the same time — wherever they may be without the need to ask or even notify the country the drones will hit.

This is nothing less than the negation of all principles of international law and a direct rejection of bringing criminals to justice in a courtroom.

Now Britain is joining the party. But there is no evidence that drone killings defeat terrorism. Such tactics ensure that the blood will continue to flow.