Wow! The Obama administration considers all military aged males in a strike zone as combatants, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

How convenient. We wouldn't want to admit we are killing civilians. That might upset people.

I seriously doubt this is a new development. It's a pretty obvious evolution of the totally fictional statistics reported by the military as far back as Viet Nam.

When do we get to start bombing the US? That's going to be my favorite.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, October 28th, 2016 5:33pm PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

*controversy *news *military

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Military, News) - requested by MrFisk.

I highly recommend reading Jocko Willink's book to get an understanding of these conflicts.

This guy makes it sound like the war is a mess akin to the fast pace of Battlefield 3 multiplayer and it couldn't be further from the truth. The US armed forces go to some pretty extraordinary lengths before dropping a bomb - for starters they give prior notification to the residents before any area is considered combat zone.
Imagine fighting a war, where you are constantly being open about where you are going to strike, it seems insane. But they do this to minimize civilian casualties as a priority over destroying targets.

I think you might be on a list somewhere now....

Live fire exercises technically mean you already are.

Quote from the YT comments I found myself agreeing with:

"Here's a few things the US forces aren't doing: Burning people alive for witchcraft, keeping sex slaves, beheading journalists, kidnapping people for ransom, forcing 1/2 of the population to cover their bodies and effectively live in bags, denying education to women, throwing homosexuals off buildings, burying people so only their head is exposed and stoning them for adultery, suicide bombing their own children to get to one US soldier, denying that the holocaust existed, and the list goes on. All of the horrible things I've listed are however practiced by the people that the US, and allied nations are fighting. So my questions are:1. Why are we holding the US army to such a high moral standard, yet we give a free pass to enemies, who are doing far, far, far worse, with the only thing stopping them from doing even worse being that they aren't as well equipped or trained as the US armed forces. If we are appalled at what the allied armies are doing, then we should be doubly appalled at what the other side is doing. Otherwise we have a double standard. 2.Why did this video single out the US? When quite a lot of the western world is involved in these conflicts. This is why I stopped being a leftie. Because the left is regressing. The leftists are targeting the high end of morality instead of trying to establishing a baseline of ethical behavior which to work from."

1: the US prides itself on its freedoms and rights. to then do what they do is somewhat hypocritical. Everyone hates a hypocrite. Even though your counter arguments are validly disgusting and inhumane, the people doing those things aren't doing them hypocritically.

2: If you strive for perfection, most people will probably fall to an above average level. If you strive for average, most people will fall to a failing level.

Ordinarily, I'd say that question is borderline retarded, but as it's a youtube comment, I'll give them props for actually using correct spelling.

But to answer his dumbarse question in reverse.... uh, first people ARE appalled at what ISIS is doing. Have you somehow missed the last 5 years of media coverage? Remember the whole "je suis charlie", "pray for paris" (as if praying wasn't what got us into this mess in the first place), etc?

Second, you hold your army to a high moral standard because they're YOUR FUCKING ARMY. When you give a bunch of people guns and a licence to commit violence in the name of your country, you expect that they do so in a thoughtful manner.

If literally the worst people on earth are your standard for moral behaviour.... that's a pretty fucking low bar.

If you become what you despise in your battle against it, you lose the war, no matter what the outcome of the battle is.

Side note....Americans have been guilty of nearly every atrocity you mention in the past. I suppose you must think we should have been eradicated for the flaws of some of our citizens/government?

So you are appalled at what ISIS are doing, but you still see the US army as the worst people in the world? This is why I'm agreeing with that quotation.

As much as US collateral damage could be lessened, they are hardly the worst people in the world. Especially as individuals - when a soldier goes home at the end of their tour, they're just regular a regular person. You cannot say the same thing for a member of a terrorist organisation where the practices listed above are considered not only normal, but law.

There is a really big difference between accidental, or even negligently causing civilian deaths vs. a doctrine to kill civilians (especially when they are your own civilians) - that's another thing entirely no?

Like I said in my previous comment, the bombing is not even anywhere near as indiscriminate as the left media would make it seem.

That's exactly my point, we are not becoming what we despise - because we would still have a very very long way to go before we matched those that we despise.

Yes Americans, and yes in the past about 400 years ago. But not the US armed forces in recent times. And never with the goals to terrorize society.

I totally agree, we should always strive for perfection, but to me it's the priority that is important.

So when we strive for perfection, the priority would always be clean up the most damaging parts first.

I'm in no way implying that we shouldn't aim to reduce civilian casualties, but really trying to put things in perspective.

You misunderstand, the US army aren't the worst people in the world; ISIS are.

That was my entire point. If your response to "the US army does some bad shit" is "yeah, but ISIS are worse" then you're setting a pretty low standard for your army.

I expect ISIS to be assholes... that's their thing.
And I expect the US army to be many orders of magnitude better than ISIS.

Same way as I expect cops to behave better than criminals.

Ahh I see - I miss read the last sentence in your previous comment. Yes I agree with you.

Well, I did get the count right. I'm even wondering if the "real count" (as in CIA run missions too) is more around 10-14 (depending on how active we are in SA and Africa, besides Somalia; potentially Eastern Europe like Turkey--even if they're in NATO, basically border stuff--and theUkraine--or around it; and SE Asia...it depends on the roles of other Intelligence Agencies AND other NATO countries...) right now...

at 2:06
Whoever made this video: just line the text box up with the bricks. don't half ass the perspective attempt.