> If you do - how can you? Why would they?

I can't answer why they would do it, but I don't think it's unusual for these people to knowingly strike civilian targets that they believe will have children present. In the famous Pete Hegseth leaked Signal chat, they were discussing bombing a residential apartment building in the middle of the night because they thought a single target was there visiting his girlfriend. Obviously that carries a high risk of killing children, and in that particular case the Secretary of Defense and Vice President were intimately involved and celebrated after learning that the building had collapsed. If those at the very top are willing to move forward with bombing civilians asleep in a residential building, I have to believe that everyone below them in the chain of command is expected to follow their lead.

▲

pegasus an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This is very different from targeting civilians as a goal in itself, which is what it would have had to be if this was not just negligence, but intentional, as GP suggested. Parent correctly points out that there's both no political incentive for that, and that it's not realistic from a psychological point of view, given reasonable assumptions about human nature.

	▲	burkaman an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The claim I'm responding to is "I refuse to believe anyone in the decision chain would move forward if they believed kids were going to be killed." I agree it's unusual for anyone in the US military to drop a bomb primarily because they want to kill some children. I think it is not unusual for people involved in bombing campaigns to anticipate killing children and move forward anyway.
	▲	cyberax 12 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Ask yourself this: the 9/11 bombings damaged economically valuable targets for the US, and the Pentagon is a straightforwardly valid military target. Can your logic be used to justify these strikes?
	▲	ImPostingOnHN 37 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> This is very different from targeting civilians as a goal in itself Targeting a single person which might be a valid target had war been declared, while also intentionally striking many civilians around them, is the same as targeting those civilians. You knew the bomb you dropped was going to kill them, and you pressed the button. It makes no difference who the primary "target" is. Otherwise, countries would just bomb all the civilians and all their infrastructure with the excuse that they heard from an unnamed source that there was a combatant nearby, like israel does in Palestine.

▲

stickfigure 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No evidence has shown up suggesting there was some sort of compelling target in the school. As foul as Trump and Hegseth may be, they aren't cartoon character villains. The Occam's razor explanation is that this was an intelligence failure and a tragic mistake.

▲

pasquinelli 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

just because you assume that trump and hegseth aren't cartoonishly evil, doesn't mean they aren't. looking at america's actions for a long time, the occam's razor explanation is that america is cartoonishly evil. the reason you struggle with that is about emotions, not logic. and i get it.

▲

worik 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is possible that two things are true

1. this was an intelligence failure and a tragic mistake.

2. Trump and Hegseth are (like) cartoon character villains.

▲

pegasus an hour ago | parent [-]

There are no cartoon villains in general, that's the point GP is making by using the word "cartoon". Let's use some common sense, it's not like Trump and Hegseth got together and sneaked in the school on the list of targets just because they liked the idea of children being killed. It's naive to suggest this is a possibility worth considering.

	▲	tastyface an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Given their glee at droning unarmed fishermen in the Caribbean, I would argue they are much farther along this axis than you realize.