new | show | ask | jobs Github

Invictus0 9 hours ago

[flagged]

▲

int_19h 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Accidents are common in war

That's precisely why you don't just start wars to show the world that your dick is still bigger than everybody else's.

▲

sho_hn 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Accidents are common in war;

As an engineer a substantial amount of my professional effort is spent on preventing them. They aren't acceptable.

▲

annexrichmond 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Nobody is saying they are acceptable. But it'd be naive to say there's ever zero risk. What's your brilliant plan? Let Iran have nukes?

▲

cogman10 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> Nobody is saying they are acceptable.

Saying "Accidents happen in war" is absolutely a way of saying "Accidents are acceptable in war".

That's what's being said here. Otherwise, it's a useless thing to say.

> What's your brilliant plan? Let Iran have nukes?

There was no evidence that Iran was pursuing nukes. Certainly no evidence that they were `n days` away from getting nukes.

My "brilliant" plan would have been the negotiations that were happening where Iran agreed to pretty strict monitoring and stipulations on nuclear fuel development.

The "Iran was getting nukes" rhetoric needs real evidence that was actually happening not "we think that might be happening because Trump said so."

▲

alex_sf 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> Saying "Accidents happen in war" is absolutely a way of saying "Accidents are acceptable in war".

Bridges fall down sometimes. I don't think it's acceptable. It's a statement of fact. There are always going to be mistakes, in every field and in pursuit of every goal. Your objection and implications aren't particularly charitable here.

> My "brilliant" plan would have been the negotiations that were happening where Iran agreed to pretty strict monitoring and stipulations on nuclear fuel development.

Iran was not complying with the monitoring requirements.

> The "Iran was getting nukes" rhetoric needs real evidence that was actually happening not "we think that might be happening because Trump said so."

Intelligence agencies under both Biden and Trump (and since at least the 90s) have repeatedly confirmed it.

This isn't really a question or doubt any reasonable person can have. There can be an argument about how close they are at any given moment, but they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

▲

cogman10 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> Intelligence agencies under both Biden and Trump (and since at least the 90s) have repeatedly confirmed it.

Cite your source. When did this happen under Biden?

	▲	alex_sf 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This isn't buried or hard to find, but in good faith: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ODNI-Un... https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/congressional-testimo...

▲

tdeck 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

These kinds of accidents seem to be particularly common in wars waged by Israel for some reason.

▲

JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Accidents are common in war

Sure. The point is this was a particularly tragic accident. And it happened for, from the looks of the ceasefire conditions, jack shit.

More pointedly: if it was an accident, it should be investigated. Honestly. Openly. Not only is it horrible, bombing children is a strategic blunder in a war for hearts and minds.