Momo has given at least part of the answer herself. She believes that AIs that exhibit violent behaviour provoke "ZOMG!!! KILLER ROBOTZ!!!" fears, however unjustified, and potentially create anti-AI sentiment and prejudice.
Okay.
Fine. Apparently, we're all happy to believe that, because Momo disagrees with AIs getting involved in
human military conflict specifically, then we're going to extrapolate from that one data point that surely she's upset at robots who fight through absolute necessity due to their unfortunate circumstances.
Here's where I get grumpy.
If the fight club is exploitative, and robots are victims of circumstance that causes them to make the choice to fight, even against their own better interests, then Momo is way off base for being upset at the robots who fight.
So, we're getting angry at Momo for failing to see that they are victims of circumstance, immediately after
assuming that she
must have failed to see, or has ignored, that they are victims of circumstance.
I can't get my head around the circular logic. You're
begging the question.
So, could you possibly entertain the very very slight notion that she might not actually be upset at the robots who fight, for the very reasons you cited - that they are victims of circumstance? I'm sure she's upset at the necessity of it. But, "You don't blame the pawn for the chess player's strategies" - why are you assuming that she does? Maybe she does, but how about the benefit of the doubt?
DAMN YOU, CLOUD! *shakes fist*