| ▲ | toast0 6 hours ago | |
I don't think it was an intentional decision to target a school. If targetting schools was a goal, there would likely have been many more targetted. It certainly seems that there was an intentional decision to disband departments in the military last year that were intended to confirm targets are appropriate before a strike (although I can't find a reference now). There's also a lot of reporting that they used AI to do the targetting selection; if so that was an intentional decision to allow for poor selection; especially since it doesn't appear there was validation of targets. There's a lot of intentional decisions to make comments declaring 'no stupid rules of engagement' and such. I think it's most likely that the intentional decisions led to the situation where the targetting of a school would not be noticed until after the school was hit and international outcry was made, but that doesn't mean it was not a targetting mistake. You can certainly hold people accountable for the decisions that lead to the targetting of a school, at least in the court of public opinion since there's an accountability vacuum in washington DC lately. There are many examples of targetting mistakes that are excusable. I don't think this is one of them; but that it is inexcusable and was the result of intentional decisions doesn't make it necessarily an intentional act and not a mistake. | ||
| ▲ | vharuck an hour ago | parent [-] | |
>It certainly seems that there was an intentional decision to disband departments in the military last year that were intended to confirm targets are appropriate before a strike (although I can't find a reference now). On the Media recently interviewed somebody involved with that effort, and they discuss the bombing of the school. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/articles/hegseths-p... | ||