Wasn't it right next to a military base, and previously used as part of that military base? And therefore a reasonable part of the targeting list that should've gotten more scrutiny but just didn't?

This feels like someone wanted to slander the US military actions, could only find one unambiguously negative thing, so then they pontificated on that.

▲

trehalose a day ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t understand your attitude. The slaughter of hundreds of children seems genuinely inherently upsetting and unacceptable to me. I don’t see why an element of negligence would make this something to just “not pontificate on” in a court of law or in public discourse.

▲

BariumBlue a day ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

carefree-bob a day ago | parent | next [-]

How exactly does an atrocity "trigger" a bombing of a school? Do you feel entitled to some atrocity credits when your opponent commits an atrocity? Fill in the gaps for me.

I feel like you are missing some steps there.

	▲	BariumBlue a day ago \| parent [-]
		You're implying it was intentional, when it clearly was not. I'd be OK with calling it criminal negligence. My annoyance was the focus on something that aligns with a narrative some people love to push (US bad), and ignoring the bigger issues that actually plague the Iranian people that just get ignored because no one actually cares.

▲

GordonS a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Come on, this is really laying it on thick! I'd like to see some pretty strong evidence of that almost comically over-the-top list you open with.

▲

westnordost a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As far as I know, yes. However, it was not quite adjacent but rather within the military base.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=27.10983&mlon=57.08475&z...

After first looking at the map, I was quite surprised as it wasn't mentioned in the news.

Why is a school basically located on a military area, and not in a residential area?

▲

esseph a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> This feels like someone wanted to slander the US military actions, could only find one unambiguously negative thing, so then they pontificated on that.

If a soldier on the ground had called in the airstrike, there is a good chance they would be in military prison.

The fact that the administration itself did it means nothing will happen.

Always know what you're shooting at, especially if it changed purposes over a decade ago.

	▲	HappyPanacea a day ago \| parent [-]
		> If a soldier on the ground had called in the airstrike, there is a good chance they would be in military prison. No, they wouldn't and neither would they in any other military; most militaries don't punish most war crimes let alone what looks like negligence.

▲

aaron695 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]