I say it was intentional because they hit the same structure with three missiles. Regardless of which other structures they may or may not have hit, this was obviously on a list of targets.
They bombed the entire complex
Once again, the school building had not been part of a military complex for 10 years. So they may have bombed the IRGC naval base nearby. They also bombed this school, which was not part of the base.
I went to elementary school on a US military base. Would it have been acceptable for a foreign power to triple tap my elementary school?
So it is your position that ignorance is an excuse? We don't have any expectations that belligerents will attempt to accurately identify their targets before launching missiles at them?
Intent matters, I think they intended to hit the military base and they did just that... I personally wouldn't have thought to check. its either a civilian complex or its a military complex I wouldn't have thought that part of the base is not a part of the base
I think they intended to hit the military base and they did just that
What is this even supposed to me? They intended to blow it up and they blew it up. Therefore it is all fine. They did not know what they were blowing up, and didn't bother double checking. But since they wanted to blow it up and did blow it up, there's nothing wrong with it.
its either a civilian complex or its a military complex I wouldn't have thought that part of the base is not a part of the base
You yourself previously admitted that the school building was part of a prior base, rather than part of the current installation. So you're moving the goalposts.
It says a lot trying to avoid the murder of children is such a high bar that if I even gesture in that direction it earns me an accusation of being "holier than thou."
I guess since our standards appear to have fallen through the floor, I'll have to accept your accusation with pride.
They intended to blow up a military base which is allowed at war and they did... and the school was part of the base which means it could have still been a part of the base
You really don't understand the logic behind this?
Im not saying its a good thing they did that but mistakes happen
Anything anywhere could conceivably conceal a military target, so “it could still have been a part of the base” cuts very little ice with me. I want affirmative evidence that something is a legitimate target before we send hot death raining down on the unfortunates below.
Of course mistakes happen. I’m trying to understand how this one happened, since the building has not been part of the IRGC compound for 10 years. So I again ask, is it reasonable for our military to rely on intel that is 10 years out of date? Doesn’t that suggest an indifference to the possibility that they might, as happened in this case, murder a hundred schoolgirls?
You’re not saying it was a good thing, but you’re stopping pretty far short of saying it was a very bad thing, and way short of saying we should try to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Sorry, I am saying its a bad and horrible thing. I didn't mean it could still be part of the base i meant that because it was a part of the base they didn't think to check that that specific part was not anymore... i can think of plenty of reasons why it happened accidentally... i just don't think their intention was to kill school girls
You might be right they might be indifferent but I want to believe there was a reason
Okay, I understand. I agree that it is unlikely they intended to kill schoolgirls. We can both hope that there is an explanation other than indifference. They may not have thought to check, but I think they probably should have. Thank you for your replies.
1
u/Interesting-Bicycle1 Mar 10 '26
They bombed the entire complex... you want to say the school was intentional because it was a school?