"Three clicks convert a data point on the map into a formal detection and move it into a targeting pipeline. These targets then move through columns representing different decision-making processes and rules of engagement. The system recommends how to strike each target – which aircraft, drone or missile to use, which weapon to pair with it – what the military calls a “course of action”. The officer selects from the ranked options, and the system, depending on who is using it, either sends the target package to an officer for approval or moves it to execution."
----------------
Maven is a tool for use in the middle of a war. When both sides are firing, minutes saved can mean lives saved for your side. Those lives, at least partly, balance the risks of hitting a bad target.
This was not a strike made in the middle of a war. If Maven was used in the strike that took out a school, it was being used as part of a sneak attack. Nobody was shooting back while this was being planned. Minutes saved were not lives saved. There should have been a priority placed on getting the targets right. Humans should have been double and triple checking every target by other means. This clearly didn't happen. The school was obviously a school that even had its own website. Humans would have spotted this if they had done more than make their three clicks and move on to the next target.
Whoever made the choice to use Maven to plan a sneak attack without careful checking made an unforced error when they had all the time in the world to prevent it. Whether it was overconfidence in their tools or a complete disregard for the lives of civilians that caused this lapse, they are directly responsible for the deaths of those little girls. I sincerely hope there are (although I doubt there will be) consequences for this person beyond taking that guilt to their grave.
> Whether it was overconfidence in their tools or a complete disregard for the lives of civilians that caused this lapse snip
it could be both, but we know no. 2, the complete disregard for the lives of civilians, is in play because, whatever else was going on, america was initiating war for the purpose of destabilizing a country, afaict at least, the reasoning has been unclear. destablize means to try to make things fuck up, and that tends to kill people. what people? how? who knows? things fucking up means out of control. at that point it's up to physics, not people.
it's like, if i set a house on fire, then later defended that action by claiming to have not known where i started the fire was a nursery.
back in the war on terror days america had a habit of blowing up weddings, and then claiming it was an accident. and i would think, accident how? did the missile fire itself?
A quick explanation of how an 'accident' like that can happen (not a justification and not comprehensive of all scenarios, just from my perspective):
Strikes on civilian gatherings are more likely when the only intelligence used to make the decision are IMINT and SIGINT.
SIGINT would typically be radio activity of interest. This could be:
- Known hostile entity using the radio (example: Taliban member known to US intelligence)
- unidentified entities using a known enemy radio frequency (some non-state actors used particular channels for certain communications)
- unknown entities communications indicated hostile association/intent. (example: members of ISIS-K discussed direct involvement in the bombing of a children's hospital)
So an analyst has determined SIGINT of interest. The signal is then geo-located to an accurate enough place in the AOR to warrant additional collection, typically a drone feed.
A reaper or predator is sent it get a direct visual of where the signal was geo-located.
Back in the day, the feeds weren't super high definition. Thus, a wedding or funeral just looks like a bunch of potentially military aged males gathering in one place.
Some things that could cement a strike authorization is seeing somebody a the wedding with a hand held radio, or collecting more SIGINT in the immediate facility. Someone attending the wedding/funeral is talking on the radio again, maybe the person previously identified as associated with the hostile group.
Depending on the conflict, that's more than was needed to authorize a strike and how we wind up reading about these gatherings getting drone striked.
Incomplete intelligence and lax rules of engagement
It's also worth mentioning that in many of the countries where these kinds of 'accidents' happen, firearms can be culturally significant as a rites of passage for males in a community. So a wedding/funeral may also appear as being partially composed of military aged armed males.
I couldn't find a web site for the school when I searched for one and I also noticed that while schools are generally marked on Google Maps in Iran this school was not. Both are IMO not really relevant or reliable sources of targeting data anyways. I found very little evidence searching online for the school but I did find something that looked like a blog about a school trip. Again though the Internet is not a reliable source of data for targeting - should be obvious.
The main way targets should/would be selected is by direct intelligence. E.g. the targets should be identified through satellite or other observations. It's hard to imagine that a building that has operated for some length of time as a school would not have patterns that are visible from satellite vs. military facilities with different patterns. You also don't just randomly attack structures in this sort of surprise attack, you're presumably aiming for some specific people or equipment with some priority/military goal in mind, so you really want to have observed the targets and patterns and have up to date information on their usage.
I think what likely happened here is that the entire base was the "unit" of targeting and the mistake was in identifying which buildings were part of the base. In the satellite view the military buildings and the school look very similar (since the building as I understand it used to be part of the base but was repurposed as a school).
It's not true that whoever made the error had all the time in the world. Presumably once the order was given there was time pressure given that the strike was to be timed with the other intelligence.
In theory the US military should/is supposed to have good processes around this stuff. So we are told. Obviously failed in this case. It is a tragedy.
>It's hard to imagine that a building that has operated for some length of time as a school would not have patterns that are visible from satellite vs. military facilities with different patterns.
You might be overestimating how much satellite capacity there is to do this level of analysis for every target.
How many American lives would you sacrifice for that? The people who made the decision to fire a missile at this place didn't decide to start the war, once you have started the war you have to make ugly tradeoffs like being too liberal or too conservative with targeting decisions.
> How many American lives would you sacrifice for that?
For what? Removing a suspected mine or missile stash that had it existed would be used to target ships in the Strait? For that you're in favour of killing 170+ schoolchildren?
> The people who made the decision to fire a missile at this place didn't decide to start the war,
The people that decided to fire missiles are the people that decided to start a war by firing missiles .. during negotiations no less.
The people that drew up a potential target list did so years before .. the people that chose to start a war have had a full 12 months to re vet the target list a remove sites that are now schools ... but they failed to do so.
> The people that drew up a potential target list did so years before
And the building was a military installation years ago. Then Iran made it into a school, nobody is omniscient here, collateral damage will always happen in war.
If things stayed static and simple as you think they are, if Iran let US military spies freely go around and note targets, or if Iran updated USA when they move their military ops around, sure collateral damage would easily get avoided, but the situation isn't like that.
> The people that decided to fire missiles are the people that decided to start a war by firing missiles .. during negotiations no less.
No, the people who made the target list are not the same people who started the war. Trump isn't there picking which building to fire it if you thought that, its guys much further down. Nobody said "we want to kill a bunch of schoolchildren first day!", they tried hard to avoid such events or many more would have died, but you can always do more and its a tragedy that it happened once.
Missing the forest for the trees, are you? Wars of aggression are against UN rules, and US is in the wrong regardless of what it hit.
Feels like we're talking here about whether rapist should have known that the rapee was a child or an adult, and they had a good reason to believe it was an adult person (there was mother of the girl standing next to it, so, hard to distinguish...), so yeah, obviously a tragedy they raped a child instead, but it happens sometimes when you rape a lot of people at once. A tragedy, but let's get on with raping more...
Iran has been waging war since the Islamic Revolution and the US claims that there was a threat of attack on US bases and US interests and therefore the attack was in self defense. The body that decides is the UNSC and given the US has veto powers it's not going to obviously declare the US attack illegal.
From Israel's perspective there's an even stronger self defense argument given the amount of missiles aimed at Israel from Iran and the enrichment of nuclear material to military grades while constantly threatening the elimination of Israel. So the US argument that they knew Israel was planning the attack and they knew Iran would retaliate against US interests seems at least on the surface to bad valid.
What the US claims is really not a strong source of anything, and I'm saying that as an American. The most compelling reasoning is that Israel was going to do something so US decision makers decided joining was the best worst decision, and I'm being very bend over backwards generous with that. Anything else is just excuses trying to cover it up. It seems obvious now that there was no stopping Israel from their strike on Iranian leadership. It was too ripe of a target, they have been emboldened by current US admin, so at that point it was in for a penny, in for a pound mentality.
If the US thought an Iranian retaliation from an Israeli strike would be to attack US assets, then the world would possibly have some sympathy. No rational person could condone an outright first strike just because we thought something was going to happen. Yet the fact that in the "we think they will do something" spit balling never suggested shutting the down the strait seems very suspect as well.
> If the US thought an Iranian retaliation from an Israeli strike would be to attack US assets
A reasonable belief, because Iran in fact responded to the US+Israeli strikes by attacking US allies and even neutral nations like Qatar.
And why should we doubt that Iran would have closed the Strait of Hormuz even if the US had not attacked, leaving Israel to attack alone? The strategic calculation (threaten the world economy so other nations oppose the war) would have been the same.
But had the US not been part of the first strike, they could have applied much more diplomatic pressure to open the strait. As an active aggressor, they have no wiggle room. It might seem like semantics to you, but there's a huge difference diplomatically.
Pressure from most of the world isn't enough, why would additional pressure from the US (who Iran already regarded as an enemy) have made the difference?
Iran didn't really do anything last year after supposedly having their facilities "totally annihilated". But it used to be that the US was respected enough that public saber rattling and behind the scenes diplomatic efforts would avoid conflict. Sadly, we've done our damnedest to turn that respect into a joke. We used to make deals with people, but the greatest deal maker ripped up all of them and replaced them with nothing on the word better deals were for the taking.
> But it used to be that the US was respected enough that public saber rattling and behind the scenes diplomatic efforts would avoid conflict.
This is isn't true in practice, even if you want to argue it's technically true. Iran has been participating in conflict through proxies continually for decades. US sabre rattling has done nothing to quell that violence.
Houthis open adversaries, Saudi, are aware that they are not really Iranian proxies [0]. Sunnis in Lebanon are Persian Shi'a 'proxy' only since their leadership was assassinated during negotiations in 2024 (also by this very liberal definition of 'proxy', eastern Iranian clans are US/Israel proxies, and killed more Iranians than Hamas killed Israelis, so I'm not sure we really want to get into it). The only proxy Iran had were Iraki Shi'a paramilitary forces, who agreed for a ceasefire to let US troops and diplomats get out of Iraq, and once the evacuation was done, got their leaders bombed. Never trust the US.
Iran gives missiles to the houtis, houtis then use those to fire at American ships. Its the same kind of proxy war as Ukrain, and people call that a proxy.
It's also been an ally of Iran. Qatar is not neutral in that it stays distant from both sides, it is neutral in that it attempts to maintain good relations with both sides.
Iran has attacked the US base in Qatar before. When they did so in 2025, Iran's Supreme National Security Council issued a statement: "this action does not pose any threat to the friendly and brotherly country, Qatar, and its noble people, and the Islamic Republic of Iran remains committed to maintaining and continuing warm and historic relations with Qatar".
This time Iran attacked Qatar itself, including the Ras Laffan gas facility and Hamad International Airport.
Qatar has never been allied with Iran. It has had economic partnerships, especially around the oil fields that Israel blew up, but that is not an alliance. Iran does not have military bases in Qatar.
Why would Iran need a base in Qatar? It's right next door.
Iran and Qatar do (did?) have military cooperation agreements, not only economic. [1] That's not a NATO style treaty but Qatar doesn't have a NATO style treaty with the US either.
> the enrichment of nuclear material to military grades while constantly threatening the elimination of Israel.
Iran has supported a treaty on elimination of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east, Israel has been the blocker of it, only actor in the region that has nukes, and isn't in the NPT.
As a non-signer of the NPT, military aid to Israel is also illegal under US law, so we play along with strategic ambiguity and pretend they don't have them.
At various times, and potentially via proxies:
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
Israel
Kurdish Rebels
The US
“All countries” via actions against shipping in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz
Iran proxies were extremely active in Syria, as they were close allies of the Assad regime. They are responsible for countless exactions.
In 1992 there was a deadly car bomb attack in Argentina, killing 29 people and injuring 250 more. Then again in 1994 a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 87 people. Eventually the investigation demonstrated conclusively that Iran was responsible.
> You have better examples for Iran like Hezbollah and Hamas.
Yes but that was mostly covered already by the comment I was responded to. I was just filling a few gaps in the list.
> Albeit Hamas has been largely propped by Israel itself and Qatar.
Qatar has certainly financed and supported Hamas a great deal.
Israel has absolutely not "propped up" Hamas. I'm aware of the allegations to the contrary, but they are wildly inflated nonsense. Israel and Hamas have been enemies to the death for decades.
Yes it did, big time, there's even a dedicated page on wikipedia [1].
It's quite impressive how most people are unaware of this.
> "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas…"
Benjamin Netanyahu on record. And there's plenty of such quotes.
Long story short: in order to delegitimize the Palestinian Authority various Israeli governments have legitimized and propped Hamas in order to have a scapegoat to not have to sit around the negotiating table.
Israeli actively armed and helped financing of Hamas while helping them suppress moderate Palestinian factions.
And that's only what we know. I wouldn't be surprised if one day we'll also get proof that Israeli intelligence knew about October 7th and still allowed it to happen to go on such an extensive military campaign and crush forever any hope for a Palestinian state at the same time.
> Benjamin Netanyahu on record. And there's plenty of such quotes.
If there are "plenty" of quotes like this, can you identify just one that we know he actually said? (Not the "thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state" quote, which is unverified and denied by him [1].)
In any case, actions speak louder than words. If we look past Wikipedians' spin and look the substance of what Israel actually did, they once facilitated Qatari aid to fund some basic civil services, to prevent societal collapse in Gaza. That's it, that's essentially the sole basis for all the misleading claims about Israel "supporting Hamas".
Correcting misinformation is shilling? What does my work have to do with anything?
Your claim was that Netanyahu was "on record" with "plenty" of quotes. If that's true, surely it must be very easy to identify two or three specific quotes that he definitely said? Your link doesn't do that. The first answer doesn't quote Netanyahu. The second says "well he didn't deny the unverified quote", which is obviously false/outdated per my link above.
In any case, is there some particular action Netanyahu took to "support Hamas" that you disagree with? Do you think Israel should have blocked the Qatari aid funds, which were ostensibly necessary to keep basic civil services running and prevent societal collapse?
They've colonized the whole region with their proxies, from Lebanon to Yemen to Iraq, previously Syria which they attacked with Hezbollah to support the Russia-backed Assad. About 1 million dead people from all this proxy warfare. Lebanon in particular wants to be a normal liberal democracy but their proxy militia assassinates any politician who stands in their way.
This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Not dismissing your point, but it's really not a useful follow up. The two things can be bad at the same time.
The fact is that the US routinely commits acts of perfidy. This was the second time they attacked Iran during negotiations.
I've said before that I'm no fan of the Iranian mullah regime, but the US is basically run by war criminals.
And they're proud of it. Albright and her "murdering 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it," Hillary and her "we came we saw he died," and
Nobel Peace Prize Barack Hussein Obama with his targeting US citizens via drone + 28000 bombing attacks, to this orange monster demolishing the White House (literally and figuratively) and any pretence at being trustworthy or civilised.
I recommend looking closely at the New York Times analysis. There were factors that might have mitigated this as a strike target, but it also really did look like a part of the compound (and it originally was!). Yes, with hindsight, we can definitively know, and with sufficient time each target could probably have been positively ID'd, but there was precisely one mis-strike in 1000s of sorties, so this already is a low error rate. TFA discusses 50 specific strikes all of which missed via automated analysis. That doesn't seem the same.
I don't disagree there. But this is not a case of hallucination, and an existing website is a signal, not a determinant, of the real situation on the ground.
However, you have made a very, very strong assumption that these targets were not carefully evaluated. One that does not seem to be present in TFA or any analysis that I've read. In fact, the article itself quotes those in the know who believe this should have been eliminated as a target.
So I read the entire TFA, where do you see “quotes [from] those in the know who believe this should have been eliminated as a target”? I saw no such quotes about the school in TFA. Maybe I missed it.
> there was precisely one mis-strike in 1000s of sorties
How did you verify this? Because I’ll remind you, the U.S. administration denied responsibility for some time before owning up to this due to public pressure. Absent public pressure, I guess we would’ve had zero mis-strikes.
> so this already is a low error rate
As a father of similarly aged daughters, I can’t express enough how grotesque and disturbing the term “error rate” is here.
We targeted and killed young children. Plain and simple.
> However, you have made a very, very strong assumption that these targets were not carefully evaluated.
Let’s take the opposing assumption that this target was carefully evaluated then. Please reason through the implications now?
> So I read the entire TFA, where do you see “quotes [from] those in the know who believe this should have been eliminated as a target”? I saw no such quotes about the school in TFA. Maybe I missed it.
TFA is from The Guardian while GP you responded to specifically called out the NYT analysis. These are different things. Maybe reading the GP's suggested source would leave you with a different set of questions?
I will try to respond to all these independent threads, but we can't continue all of them at once.
> . “These aren’t just nameless, faceless targets,” he said later. “This is a place where people are going to feel ramifications for a long time.” The targeting cycle had been fast enough to hit 50 buildings and too fast to discover it was hitting the wrong ones.
> The air force’s own targeting guide, in effect during the Iraq war, said this was never supposed to happen. Published in 1998, it described the six functions of targeting as “intertwined”, with the targeteer moving “back” to refine objectives and “forward” to assess feasibility. “The best analysis,” the manual stated, “is reasoned thought with facts and conclusions, not a checklist.”
> A former senior government official asked the obvious question: “The building was on a target list for years. Yet this was missed, and the question is how.”
---
> Please reason through the implications now?
It was a mistake. My girls are about to enter this level of school, as well (cool parent card). A mistake/error/tragedy can all accurately be used to describe this. It's horrible it happened. All I'm saying is that no process is perfect. It is not excusable, but it is unfortunately understandable how it happened in this situation.
> 1000s
1000s is fairly easily understood. 1/1000 is inferred b/c as you say, "public pressure" sprang up immediately after this one bombing. Iran regularly posts pictures and videos online, and human rights orgs are clamoring to find evidence. Either we are really good at suppressing the world except for this one case or there aren't that many schools being bombed. We cannot be simultaneously horrible at picking targets and suppressing evidence and also great at it in every other case. Planet labs themselves provided the pictures - they are freely available.
Yes maybe the machine lumbers on, stomping on kids, or maybe we've learned our lesson and are now perfect, but this seems like the kind of mistake that can happen, and it seems likely that the analysts involved here are now benched and I wouldn't be surprised if some corrections are happening internally. These are human beings, despite what the article would have you believe, that are doing the best they can.
> we targeted and killed young children
We killed young kids, but not on purpose. We targeted a building and intent matters. I refuse to believe anyone in the decision chain would move forward if they believed kids were going to be killed. If you do - how can you? Why would they?
We're going to quickly get into hypotheticals here. There's a lot of open threads, and believe me I hate with the fullest extent of the word violence against children. We can leave it at that.
It feels like an appreciation for hypotheticals or givens is missing here. One can simultaneously be against the war and the bombing in general, and also accept it as a given and then think about a certain situation being understandable within that given.
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.
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.
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.
> 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 and medical facilities and schools with the excuse that they heard from an unnamed source that there was a combatant nearby, like israel does in Palestine.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there boss. The man Hegseth in all his 'no quarter' bravado is only affirming his own mother's claim that he is a piece of shit. respectfully of course, I would not put it past him to kill some kids for a political or terrorism reason (the parents).
Your first two quotes are about targeting in the Iraq War; specifically how the breakdown in careful analysis, precipitated by the new systems, led to the exact mis-targeting they were trying to solve. That’s what the entire article is about.
And your third quote is from an ex-official commenting on the event after the school strike happened.
These quotes contradict your original point, ie they show how careful analysis has been designed out of the system.
> We killed young kids, but not on purpose. We targeted a building and intent matters. I refuse to believe anyone in the decision chain would move forward if they believed kids were going to be killed. If you do - how can you? Why would they?
This sounds incredibly naive. For starters, plausible deniability due to diffuse responsibility is a thing.
“Of course we don’t target schools and kill children, this was a system error.” But the message gets sent regardless and meanwhile we have people arguing back-and-forth over grains of sand because they took an action with deliberate plausible deniability.
Of course they didn’t intend to kill the children, they only intended to disperse the strikers by setting their tents on fire. It was simply a mistake.
It's incredible, after all the grotesque stories about rape, torture and murder of children, men and women during the Iraq war, active support of genocide (and 10s of thousands of children murdered by Israel, on purpose), prisoners rape and child imprisonment, a "secretary of war" and president publicly admiting to war crimes and saying things like "negotiate with bombs" you still "refuse to believe" that anyone in decision chain wouldn't do anything like this.
My comment is to say the US has proven how brutal they are consistently through all the wars of aggression they have waged in the past several decades. They do not see their "enemies" as human. I can't fix anything unfortunately.
> I refuse to believe anyone in the decision chain would move forward if they believed kids were going to be killed. If you do - how can you? Why would they?
Because they’re openly callous and contemptful of anyone they don’t consider a heritage American? Because the admin has already abused children to lure out parents in their anti immigrant push?
And that’s before getting into the Epstein file allegations and if he raped and killed kids already.
I’m gonna throw it back on you, how can you believe that this admin cares if foreign kids die?
You have evidence in front of you on a weekly basis of these people being that evil and that stupid, and we’re coming up on 2 years of that playing out.
we are speaking politicians who make a habit of bluster and liking "shows of force" and are openly contemptful of the lives of those who don't agree with or look like them
some of them believe that it is their religious duty to start this war and make it heinous enough to start ww3 and bring forth the return of jesus christ
I think you are ascribing a level of systems thinking and care about consequences which one cannot simply assume is there
if you were to, say, start with an assumption that some of the actors have the mental patterns and world model of an angsty, self-centered teenager, or younger, then you might draw different conclusions
> Either we are really good at suppressing the world except for this one case or there aren't that many schools being bombed. We cannot be simultaneously horrible at picking targets and suppressing evidence and also great at it in every other case.
...is a logical fallacy (false dichotomy). It presumes a level of intent that isn't necessarily present.
For an example of how these might coexist, I'd encourage The Toxoplasma of Rage, which is a long essay that frequently comes up here:
The idea is that rage is its own, self-replicating emotion, and given the medium of the Internet, it's possible that some memes have no purpose other than self-perpetuation. A story about a girls' school being blown up is self-replicating: it gets people riled up enough to share it. A story about a random factory, or some dead person's house, or an empty patch of desert is not really. It's entirely possible that attacks on these happened hundreds of times in the Iran war, but if it did, I would never know about it. I probably wouldn't care about it. Those are not stories that go viral, they don't have enough emotional valence to make people care. And the media knows this, and so they don't bother to seek them out or run them.
And in fact, a handful of illegal targets get hit each day, according to HRANA. HRANA is an Iranian human rights org that was banned in Iran during an election and has since been re-established in the US. They are a reliable source.
If you scroll down to the "Facilities Protected Under International Humanitarian Law", you will see a list of non-military targets. That part is never empty in these reports.
The terrorists that struck the World Trade Center targeted a building too.
If we aren't going to have a military doctrine that cares about who's in the building, we will be treated the same by our enemies. I don't think we want that.
If I recall we saw two planes. We did not see any individual as such in the planes, did we? We saw some passports; not sure that this proves much at all. We also had WTC 7 going down and the strike on the other building (was it in Washington) but not much aside from this.
I am not saying the-cake-is-a-lie, everything was fabricated, mind you. What I am saying is that IF we are going to make any conclusions, we need to look at what we have, and then find explanations and projections to what is missing. For instance, any follow-up question such as damage to a building, can be calculated by a computer, so this is not a problem. The problem, though, is IF one can not trust a government, to then buy into what they show or present to the viewer. Hitler also used a fake narrative to sell the invasion of Poland, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
That does not mean everything else is a false flag or fake, per se, but I do not automatically trust any allegation made by any government. You can look back in history and wonder about attempts to sell explanations, such as Warren Commission and a magic bullet switching directions multiple times. Again, that can be calculated via computers, so that's not an issue per se; the issue is if they made claims that are factually incorrect and/or incomplete.
This feels like moving the goalposts. The OP and the preceding comments are pretty clearly talking about the targeting mistake aspect of this incident, not the war itself. You're moving the discussion from the former to the latter to it easier to argue that US is in the wrong, but if the argument is that the war was unjust to begin with, then do you really need a school getting bombed to push you over the edge? After all, even if they bombed an IRGC compound and only killed soldiers, those soldiers are still people's sons, fathers, husbands. Even if there's no deaths, you could still make the macroeconomic argument that any economic losses are impoverishing the Iranian people.
No, I am fine with parent's take. We treat children as absolutely innocent (which they are, regardless of the way anybody tries to spin this or ie Gaza), and killing children is extra heinous crime compared to killing adult, same with rape etc. Children rapist get extra special treatment in jails, often from other murderers and society is largely fine with that.
As a parent, even when cutting off most of the emotions related to this horrible war crime, I am unfazed and unconvinced by such, even if well meaning whataboutism.
>I am unfazed and unconvinced by such, even if well meaning whataboutism.
No, it's not whataboutism, it's moving the goalposts. Consider the following exchange:
Alice: "McDonalds mistreats its workers by paying them below the minimum wage"
Bob: "No they don't. They all get paid at or above the local minimum wage"
Charlie: "Well that doesn't matter, because McDonald's still mistreats its workers because it's a capitalist institution, which by definition means they're siphoning the fruits of the worker's labor"
Even if you agree with Charlie's point, at the very least it's in poor taste to bring it up in a conversation specifically talking about the minimum wage. Otherwise every discussion about some aspect of [thing] just turns into a plebiscite about [thing].
The only reason Iranian bombs aren’t hitting America is because their range isn’t long enough. Iran-commanded forces (located in Iran, Lebanon, Yemen) have been targeting civilians for many years.
You believe that anyone who lives on stolen land is not a citizen and deserves to be bombed? Americans live on stolen land too, as does much of the rest of the world population.
If it was 1570, it would absolutely be valid to remove settlers from the Americas. If fact the Pueblo Revolt is considered to be one of the more successful and justified acts of indigenous resistance.
Ok, it sounds the principle here is if any land was stolen in the 20th century the people who live there now aren’t citizens (regardless if they are children or not) and deserve to be bombed? I hope nobody tells the balkans.
This is just your opinion. The tragedy here is that there are people with similar opinion and bombs at their disposal that feel complete impunity and go around murdering in the world
Also, remembe the CIA co-staged a coup in Iran in 1953. That's one fact, nor just opinion.
I suspect if the IRGC accidentally blew up a school next to a military base in Oklahoma, they would find it in them to condemn those who made such an innocent mistake.
That's all speculation. What we know is that the US agressed Iran without provocation and in the midst of negotiations and started by blowing up a school and not owning up to it. And now they have threatened multiple times with destroying the civilian energy infrastructure, which is a war crime.
Please ask yourself if there is true evil in the world. People who are willing to kill children on purpose, or maim them, or burn them with acid, or commit other bad things I wont get into.
Then ask yourself if bad things can happen despite good intents. Truly horrible things, in fact, despite effort to prevent them.
Then, ask if this bombing was part of group A or group B.
And ask if we were trying to target people from group A or group B.
This is not an "ends justify the means" argument, I hope. But if you want to count bodies as some kind of justification for or against war because apparently morals can be reduced to addition and subtraction, you might as well at least classify the dead and causes correctly.
> Then, ask if this bombing was part of group A or group B.
false dichotomies are a common rhetorical method (and sometimes useful) to argue your way to a moral justification, but that doesn't make them reflect reality
There is no A and B. You want to force a situation where B is pure good intent and we either have to choose that or choose A where there is only bad intent. The reality is, this war is about ego, power and money as much as it is about any "good intent". The decisions to start the war were made with a full knowledge of the risks and costs it would entail, with almost all of those being externalised to other people than those taking the choices.
Nobody taking those choices should get to just opt out of moral responsibility with some easy "A / B" logic.
We (US) are definitely in Group A. We killed and are continuing to kill more innocent people (including children) than everyone else combined but are always hiding under “oh, we really good guys here, just shit happens while we are bombing around the world for decades for no particular reason until we eventually lose and leave”)
Evil is commiting atrocious acts for self-interest. This is a description of US foreign policy (not exclusively, of course). Killing 150 schoolchildren is unfortunately but a fraction of a drop in the bucket of atrocities committed by either the US or Israel.
No. No childs life is worth some hypothetical regime change. There is no greater evil in this scenario than a hypothetical greater good attempts at justifying this.
> Accidentally killing a bunch of kids would likely be worth it, morally speaking, if it led to the destruction of the Iranian regime.
It most absolutely is not and I struggle to believe you can build a valid argument that links bombing school children as necessary for the fall of Iran’s government.
How you win a war, especially one as lopsided as this invasion is, is as important as winning. I cannot so easily sleep at night knowing we are committing horrific atrocities during an invasion we chose to launch against a country thousands of miles away with zero military capacity to harm us here at home.
Some children being killed is an inevitable part of war. Do you agree with the statement "No war has ever been worth the results."? If yes, then okay end of conversation. But if not then we need to talk about acceptable mistake rates and where this falls, because zero mistakes is not possible. Note that I am not defending the strike here, I'm saying that the criticism needs more depth.
I might not know your personal background, but I have a hard time imagining you come from a lineage that has experience the cost of one of those.
The list of today's remaining colonies is short enough[0] that it is worth considering whether decolonization was "an idea that reached its time" in the late 20th century ; and given that there are examples of peaceful revolutions (eg India and West Africa) it is worth asking whether more places could have undergone peaceful transitions, and whether the cost in human lives and atrocities born within a decade of war doesn't outweigh the cost of the colonial system dying by itself within the same order of magnitude of time.
But then again, I think you're veering us somewhat off-topic as I'd consider a "colonial freedom war" to be a revolution (the people overthrowing their overlord) which is quite different from the topic at hand here, war between nation-states.
Which part do you think is a strawman? Because one of the people that replied to me does appear to think that no war has ever been worth the results. It's a legitimate point of view, and that's why I asked if it was your point of view.
For the rest of this post I'm assuming it's not your point of view.
I'm very much not trying to strawman you, I'm trying to improve your argument. If any wars are considered "worth it, morally speaking", then single mistakes can't be enough to invalidate the war. We need to talk about how many mistakes happen and how they happen. We need to say how much is too much, and "zero mistakes" is not compatible with "some wars are worth it". The idea that we could have both in the real world is self-deception.
1. This isnt an invasion, just a bombing campaign.
2. Of course it would be better to not kill any kids, but thats just not how war works. Mistakes will be made, that doesnt mean eliminating the number one funder of terror in the world isnt worth it. Even if the next regime hates the US/israel just as much they will likely spend much less supporting terror groups because they know theyll just get bombed again.
3. Of course this is all if the bombing campaign actually worked. It didnt, and thats no surprise, which is why the whole thing is pretty clearly immoral imo.
> zero military capacity to harm us here at home.
The houthis harmed the US quite a bit by destroying American ships and harming global trade. In fact their actions were arguably far more harmful to the average american than any domestic terrorist attack could possibly be because of the economic impact that effected every single american.
First, this is completely untrue. Hamas and Hezbollah have been launching missiles at Israel literally nonstop for 20 years. The houithis have and will continue to launch missiles at US assets along the Bab al-Mandab Strait. All of these missiles came directly from the iranian regime. Those groups are an arm of the Iranian government
Thats not the point though. There is no reason for either party to respond proportionally in a war. Going to war against an equal weight class as idiocy, sun tzu figured that one out forever ago.
So Iran kills untold innocent children and innocents but because they havent yet launched an attack on american soil(they absolutely could) its immoral to stop them from killing more children and innocents? Doesnt make sense to me. Thats before we even get to the major economic damage their terrorist network has caused. The US morally must just sit back while Iran funds and arms the group that routinely shuts down global trade and costs americans billions?
We literally just deployed 5000 troops to Iran after weeks of bombing. We are boots on the ground and our belligerent president literally calls it a war. It is disingenuous to bicker over whether we can call our attack an invasion. If it was happening to us we certainly would call it one.
Hand wavy “that’s war for ya” nonsense isn’t appropriate for a serious discussion of ethics. Especially when discussing bombing a school.
> Hand wavy “that’s war for ya” nonsense isn’t appropriate for a serious discussion of ethics.
I was responding to whether the "invasion" could have been accomplished without killing the kids. I dont think that's realistic.
The separate question of whether it's worth it morally to topple the regime given kids will die I think is pretty simply yes. Iran's funding of terrorism kills and will continue to kill far more kids than died in this strike. Iran's funding of Hamas has been partially responsible for the terrible conditions Gazans are subject to. Even if Israel is mostly responsible for that I think conditions will improve if Iran cuts Hamas off. Same with Yemen, if Iranian funding is cut off conditions for the 15 million children there will improve. So yea for me personally Ive got no problem with a bombing campaign that will undoubtedly accidentally kill some civilians if it means the Iranian regime is toppled.
Killing children in an unprovoked attack to stop somebody else from potentially killing children in the future doesn't seem like a moral take to me, even if "someone else" killed more in the past or will in the future. In particular, because it actually sends the message that it's ok to kill children as long as you get what you want in the end. Not a great precedent. Perhaps that is the root of where your utilitarian morals diverge from some others' morals.
Unfortunately for everyone, now the US and israel killed a bunch of kids, and reinforced that precedent for others with these sorts of flimsy justifications, *and* everything will be the same or worse in Iran, especially for civilians. So lose-lose-lose.
> Even if Israel is mostly responsible for that [conditions in the Gaza region of Palestine] I think conditions will improve if Iran cuts Hamas off.
We can already see the outcome of that in the West Bank region of Palestine: no hamas, yet israel still exercises ultimate control via violence, and keeps oppressing and killing Palestinians and taking or destroying their stuff with impunity, especially as of late.
There's no indication israel would be more generous to Palestinians in the Gaza region of Palestine if hamas wasn't there. Palestinians in Gaza see what israel does to Palestinians in the West Bank, and want no part of it. Who can blame them? It's sick.
Conditions in the west bank are far better than in gaza for what its worth. If all the million kids in gaza got to live in conditions as good as the west bank kids get the bombing would be worth it for that alone.
> Conditions in the west bank are far better than in gaza for what its worth.
'The brutal apartheid ongoing in the West Bank isn't as bad as the brutal genocide ongoing in Gaza' isn't the best flex for israel, especially since they're perpetrating both.
obviously before the latest wave of israel's genocide in Gaza, the oppression, control, and lack of freedom in the West Bank region of Palestine were worse than Gaza. Plus the West Bank still experiences israel imprisoning and killing Palestinian civilians and taking or destroying their land and stuff with impunity
the observant reader might notice that the common factor behind the misery in both regions of Palestine is not hamas, but israel
also, consider reading the first half of the post to which you responded – we were talking about the wisdom and morality of killing kids to achieve your objectives, and then also miserably failing to achieve your objectives. Your thoughts? Still worth killing the kids when it was for nothing?
No it isn't. You're assuming perfect information, when the reality is nowhere near as clear. I certainly believe that Iran killed a lot of protesters recently. Undoubtedly some of them were innocent. Some others were collaborators; Israel is well known to be engaged in a shadow war with Iran and to have infiltrated a large number of people within the Iranian security apparatus. I'm thus extremely skeptical of any specific claims around numbers for the foreseeable future.
The problem with this simplistic utilitarianism is that assumes a degree of omniscience that doesn't exist. You can excuse any atrocity by claiming it's an unavoidable by product of a high-minded end. Life rarely presents neat classic trolley problems, and even if it did there are many unknowns; for example, are you sacrificing the life of one saint to save five serial killers? Absent this information I'd opt to save one person, but would be doing so with the awareness that I might be making a very bad decision for which I'll have to take responsibility.
In this case, the trolley is in a whole other country. Unilaterally attacking it (while negotiations were ongoing) is regarded by most experts as a blatant violation of international law and that's the primary reason nominally allied countries are refusing to assist.
You're giving the regime far more of the benefit of the doubt than they deserve. Their crimes are well documented.
Aside from that, the risk of accidentally bombing a school is also an unknown quantity. So we're looking at "risk of leaving the regime in place" vs "risk of accidentally bombing kids". Feels plenty trolly-ish to me.
No matter how inept or corrupt the process, the fact is some bombs fell out of the sky and killed a bunch of unelected dictators who just weeks ago murdered thousands of their own countrymen. In my eye, this is an excellent precedent. If it means paying a few more dollars for gas, so be it.
The us has over 150 elementary schools on military bases. If you use a more colloquial definition of military base, many many national guard armories are on the same block as elementary schools or even right next to them.
Can you cite anything that says all iranian military bases are next to elementary schools? If they are on ALL bases, that makes hitting an elementary school on base less forgivable, not more, because if its a fact of every iranian military base, it's a lot harder to claim good intelligence and also that they didn't check that the part of base being bombed was the school.
And a very very true one. If the US military had maps at least the quality of local tourist ones, or Google Maps, they could have know basically the location of every ice cream shop, supermarket, school, and military building.
I would say that should be pretty much a prerequisite for launching an attack, (at least map out the city block around the target). The US has been eying to strike Iran for decades.
Mapping enemy targets is basically one of the biggest tasks (in scope) intelligence agencies undertake, and can be done in peacetime.
There was no extreme time pressure here, this was just a lack of due diligence and operational sloppiness.
One of the key stated goals of this war, is to have the Iranian people topple their totalitarian government, thereby avoiding having to fight a ground war, and as such, goodwill is extremely important.
The damage this strike did to that goodwill outweighs any potential military advantage the US possibly could get out of it.
Not sure if astonishingly credulous or just pretending.
Iran claims 600 schools have been damaged, with over 1000 students killed. I doubt the veracity of those numbers, but not as much as I doubt the US claims of benign omniscience in targeting and invulnerability from being targeted.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the US should not be in this war at all. How people have already moved on from that to making monstrous posts like this makes me sick.
Who said there’s only been one mis-strike among 1000s of sorties? There’s been one mis-strike so egregiously wrong that even the western media call it out. There would be many more that don’t make it onto the front pages of first world media.
>>I recommend looking closely at the New York Times analysis. There were factors that might have mitigated this as a strike target, but it also really did look like a part of the compound (and it originally was!).
What a ridiculous take. What does "originally was" mean? Maybe you wanna say "previously was"? That building was converted to a school 10 years ago! The intelligence they relied on is 10 years old!!!!! It's recklessness and stupidity dressed as bravery and courage.
> Yes, with hindsight, we can definitively know, and with sufficient time each target could probably have been positively ID'd, but there was precisely one mis-strike in 1000s of sorties, so this already is a low error rate.
This is giving them too much credit.
Hegseth has already shown himself to entirely disregard the notion of War Crime, even by the US military's own already controversial standards. The double strike on the boats in the caribbean are literally the textbook example in US military textbooks of what not to do, and that it is a warcrime.
This was no mistake. It was the obvious outcome of a pattern of reckless action.
Why? You just saw I got the point without reading it.
Am aware content of media coming from either side is so normalized there is little value giving either my attention for free. I am not susceptible to Fox News fear mongering and already read 1984 among others. Neither are going to say anything novel. They're just engaged in barter for food and shelter.
I spent the time engaged in more useful endeavors to those around me and myself.
It's almost as if AI's purpose is to shift blame, saying that the 'computer did it', in which case these deliberately unreliable AI systems are used, so that responsibility can be avoided, or smeared across the command chain, so every person was only responsible for an innocious part of the whole disaster.
A computer can never be held accountable Therefore a computer must never make a management decision
For someone that interested in precision of supporting claims with evidence, you make pretty ridiculous and completely unsupported claims yourself, like "there was precisely one mis-strike in 1000s of sorties".
The New York Times are the same people who spread the lie about Iraq having WMDs, they are not credible, and in fact have been proven to be incredibly biased when it comes to wars in the Middle East.
Israel and the US targeted many schools in Gaza. They killed tens of thousands of children. This strike was clearly intentional and very much in line with all other Zionist actions.
You have clearly articulated what I’ve personally explained to people. Thank you for that. The nature of the strikes as a part of a thoroughly pre-planned surprise attack lays the entire blame at the planners, approvers and those who executed the strike.
The lack of comprehension some people have baffles me, as I’ve had the displeasure of reading several dozens of online posts asking why kids were at school during the strikes. Even giving these people the benefit of the doubt that they do not know that not all countries observe the same weekday/weekend split as in the case of Iran, how in the world is a teacher or a child supposed to know when to hide from a surprise attack?
The easier it gets to give people the tools and power of lethal force, the more preventable injuries and death happen to innocent people. The cover of military conflict should not protect from consequences in cases like this.
Knowing the demographics of this website, it will not make anyone here safer that there is credible proof of Israel using Whatsapp metadata to source location data of adult men, and executing strikes based on that information. Western media already shared stories of how ordinary cell phone metadata was used to conduct strikes that killed innocent civilians. 15-20 years later the exact same deadly inaccurate methods are being used to quench the leaders’ and planners’ thirst for any results. One day a bomb might fall on any of our homes purely based on some circumstantial proof that wouldn’t even be enough for a traffic violation…
We learned that Israel was going to strike, so the US decided to jump on board. Do we know how long of a notice Israel gave the US? What you're attributing to as a thought out plan of attack seems to imply plenty of time. I don't think it's unreasonable for Israel to have learned of the meeting with little notice, deliberated internally for however long, and then told the US about it with not much time. I could totally see where under current Pentagon leadership, three clicks would have been the reaction. Yes, the US had been saber rattling and building pressure. That's probably part of why the Iranian leadership decided to meet. Whatever plans the US might have had went out the window when Israel called up and said we're striking now.
May I suggest a better approach to that situation?
Israel: Hey, we're gonna start bombing Iran in 15 minutes, so pick your targets! Time's a-wastin'!
US: We do not give a fuck who is meeting with who when. If you ever want to see another dime, or another spare part, or another kind word, let alone have us actually do anything, then you aren't gonna do jack shit unless and until we're goddamned good and ready. Otherwise, have fun with the blowback.
You may suggest whatever you want, but it means nothing regardless of how sane and rational of a suggestion it might be. This administration has consistently demonstrated that they are not concerned with that.
> Whoever made the choice to use Maven to plan a sneak attack without careful checking made an unforced error when they had all the time in the world to prevent it
Who said they had all the time in the world? You can't get most of Irans upper leadership in a single room every day when they were publicly trying to hide.
I agree with everything you said - but it's also the case that a set of parameters were created that, instead of requiring multi-person validation of target validity and provenance, prioritized speed to provide decision makers with options.
This certainly doesn't absolve the person implementing those parameters, but it is equally the responsibility of the very top of the decision-making structure.
I'm not sure how true that is. Enemy factories and command centers don't grow out of the ground overnight.
Nor do planes get maintained, armed, fueled and flown to the target zone in the matter of minutes.
In preparing such an operation, I'm sure the critical path even with traditional planning methods, is in other places.
While I agree, that there are certain scenarios where an important enemy commander or an expensive mobile launcher gets detected, and you only have a window of minutes to hours before its gone, this is not one of those cases.
I feel like the military bought some fancy new hammers, and wanted to show the purchase was justified.
And fundamentally, this is aUS doctrine issue. The US is willing to strike targets in foreign soul with no boots-on-the-ground confirmation of target nature.
It's how the Obama administration drone-struck a wedding before this and how a missile got dropped on a Chinese embassy before that. The doctrine itself is flawed.
I agree with your overall sentiment, but how realistic is it? Israel/US says they've been hitting thousands of targets (so reality might mean ~hundreds, still a lot), how are they supposed to verify this at all?
> Humans should have been double and triple checking every target by other means.
How practically would this happen? The US/Israel don't want people on the ground, and people on the ground is exactly the only way you can actually verify stuff like this, not every place in the world is on Google Maps or have a web presence at all, so the only realistic way to verify this would be to visually inspect it in person, something neither parties who started this war want to do.
Even better, don't make attacks against other soverign nations that don't pose an immediately and critical threat to you, and this whole conflict could have been avoided in the first place.
But no, the president has to be involved in some sort of child-trafficking scheme, so pulling the country into a war seemed preferable to being held responsible, and now we're here, arguing about fucking details that don't matter.
The school literally had its own website. If the AI involved was as smart as the media hype machine makes them out to be, it would have found the website and marked it as a non-target. It never even would have made it to human review.
I live near a military base, and there is a daycare, school, rec center, pub, ice rink, church, and grocery store, open to the public, and not managed by the military. All of it is on land owned by the military, but outside the wire.
The fact that these facilities exist on military land near a base (which a hostile government would surely argue IS the base) does not mean that the people in those buildings have it coming.
Technically the statutes of Rome forbid using human shields.
A nation state bombing US mainland bases sounds rather implausible, although I certainly would prefer that civilian infrastructure to have a minimum distance to military targets, even in the US, even if only to set the right example to the rest of the world.
I do believe there would be value in modernizing the statutes of Rome regarding human shields, which would force nation states to compile machine readable lists of school locations, so that non-existent reported childrens schools and secret childrens schools would be automatically screened.
Keeping the school secret, or reporting a school location too close to a military base would then activate the right of the international community to attack that nation, in order to prevent nation states from using elementary schools etc. as human shields.
IRGC wants nuclear ICBM's. Iran invests heavily in STEM education and physics. The whole population is aware of such goals, the whole population is aware of the adversarial relationship with the Western hemisphere. Imagine your child being allocated the school that was bombed in Iran, but before it was bombed: wouldn't you protest and ask for your child to be allocated to a different school? They risk being the first casualties when the inevitable escalation to war occurs. Clearly in this fun society of Iran, those parents didn't get a choice, and could only pray their kids get through elementary before such a foreign attack occurs.
IMHO, the most damning aspect is that proper, modernized international law clarifying the permitted action-reaction patterns around human shields could have prevented these deaths, by disincentivizing such nations from using kids as human shields.
Does that make it not a school, somehow? Or are we cool with killing kids just because their parents might be in the military? I'm not clear what the excuse being made actually is.
It's definitely not cool to have a school adjacent to a military base.
Not saying this specific attack was justified, but whoever allowed this, let alone if it was done intentionally as a strategy, also has blood on their hands.
Where do you think the children of our armed forces go to school? There are hundreds of schools on or adjacent to military installations in the US. The only people with blood on their hands for bombing a school are the people who bombed the school. It’s really not more complicated than that.
> It's definitely not cool to have a school adjacent to a military base. Not saying this specific attack was justified
I mean, you kind of are saying it was justified, given the entirety of your focus is on justifying it. The blood is solely on the hands of the useless, dumbshit military that couldn't identify a school and avoid bombing it. And that's the charitable interpretation of their actions.
To be fair, we don't really have the capacity to run satellite surveillance on each and every target we select to engage in a sneak attack.
I think sometimes people watch hollywood movies and get the impression that it represents a kind of cataloging of our military capabilities. A demonstration of what we can do to our enemies. With the underlying subtext being "don't mess with us."
I just want to gently suggest that not everything we see in movies is factual with respect to military or intelligence capabilities.
I'm an old timer. I got off the bus at Quantico in 1991. But even though I'm not in right now, I'd feel confident in betting that we don't have the capacity to surveil that many targets via satellite for, say, 1 week, prior to our attack.
(Of course, when I got off the bus at Quantico in '91 I also would have been just as confident in betting that the US would never engage in a first strike. So what do I know?)
That is true for an active war but I don't believe it is true if you have literally months and months to plan an attack. Unless of course there was no plan until just a few days before and you stupidly threw a ton of your advantage right into the trash.
A similar situation happened a few weeks ago when the US/Israel started targeting Iranian police facilities. They bombed a public park in Tehran called "Police Park" because it has the name "Police" in it. It's a normal park.
If you asked AI to "list the top 100 police facilities in Tehran", this location would appear on the list. It's clear they're using AI to pick targets.
Fixed. US only has chutzpah to fight someone who can’t meaningfully fight back. If US was truly fighting evil regimes, it would go for Russia, China, NK and bunch of other autocrats.
"the question that organised the coverage was whether Claude, a chatbot made by Anthropic, had selected the school as a target."
This article is the first I have seen mention of Claude in relation to this specific incident. There's been plenty of talk about AI use in warfare in general but in the case of this school most of the coverage I have seen suggested outdated information and procedures not properly followed.
Amodei looks absolutely prescient for taking a stand against use of Claude in the kill chain. Not to mention how utterly foolish DoD looks declaring Claude to be a national security threat while simultaneously using to choose targets. No wonder they got humiliated in court.
Well, to people who don't believe in precognition, it sounds like Anthropic had quality control engineers dedicated to their military clients' usage. Basically running through the prompts and inspecting the answers and digging deeper how their chatbots gave those answers. Somebody must have pressed the high-alert button, resulting in Anthropic taking a stance.
Certainly possible but I'd assume DoD expressly forbid anyone looking at their usage and Anthropic had to support that to win their contract. They may have gotten wind of what they were doing somehow.
you, today, can use Claude in Amazon Bedrock, and the way that works is, if you want it to be this way: the piece of code and model weights and whatever other artifacts are involved, they are run on Bedrock. Bedrock is not a facade against Claude's token-based-billing RESTful API, where Anthropic runs its own stuff. In the strictest sense, Bedrock can be used as a facade over lower level Amazon services that obey non-engineering, real world concerns like geographic boundaries / physical boundaries, like which physical data center hardware is connected by what where / jurisdictional boundaries, whatever. It's multi-tenancy in the sense that Amazon has multiple customers, but it's not multi-tenancy in the sense that, because you want to pay for these requirements, Amazon has sorted out how to run the Claude model weights, as though it were an open-weights model you downloaded off Hugging Face, without giving you the weights, but letting you satisfy all these other IP and jurisdictional and non-technical requirements that you are willing to pay for, in a way that Anthropic has also agreed.
This is what the dispute with the Pentagon is about, and what people mean when they say Claude is used in government (it is used in Elsa for the FDA for example too). Anthropic doesn't have telemetry, like the prompts, in this agreement, so they have the contract that says what you can and cannot use the model for, but they cannot prove how you use the model, which of course they can if you used their RESTful API service. They can't "just" paraphrase your user data and train on it, like they do on the RESTful API service. There are reasons people want this arrangement ($$$).
The vendor (Palantir) can use, whatever model it wants right? It chose Claude via "Bedrock." I don't know if they use Claude via Bedrock. Ask them. But that's what they are essentially saying, that's what this is about. Palantir could use Qwen3 and run it on datacenter hardware. Do you understand? It matters, but it also doesn't matter.
It's a bunch of red herrings in my opinion, and this sort of stuff being a red herring is what the article is mostly about.
As I understood it, Anthropic was prime on their own contract which the DoD infamously unsuccessfully tried to renegotiate mid-term. Are you saying that Palantir had some subcontracted use of Claude independent of Anthropic's existing contract?
Did anyone seriously believe this was the AI's fault? The modern military use of LLMs is very clearly for the purpose of creating vaguely plausible targets while distancing any person from the decision to murder people. Surely if we cared at all about accomplishing a strategic goal we would have had a set of well documented targets ready to go. Instead the goal seems to be to drop as many bombs as possible, hope the computer's good enough that they mostly hit people who have relevance to things we don't like, and loudly proclaim that it's more important to kill people than it is to have any goal at all.
Really fascinating article. Bits of bias here and there, like "The US military has been trying to close the gap between seeing something and destroying it for as long as that gap has existed" -- you can respond to seeing and understanding something without destroying it -- but it underscores, to me at least, how much denser the "fog of war" has become. The fog of media reporting in general. Those first few paragraphs felt like a breath of fresh air.
Before it was the gods, then God, then Nature, and now AI. Human beings really have a fundamental issue with accepting responsibility for their actions.
From a certain angle, the entire industrial and computer age looks like a massive effort to remove all responsibility for our actions, permanently.
Palantir is the designer of the lethal US missile targetting system that has ten years outdated data information [1],[2],[3].
For the love of God, who's the Palantir design architect that approved and relied on a single (outdated) database information system for mission critical missile operation?
[1]>In 2018, more than 4,000 Google employees signed a letter opposing the company’s contract to build artificial intelligence for the Pentagon’s targeting systems. Workers organised a walk out. Engineers quit. And Google ultimately abandoned the contract. Palantir Technologies, a data analytics company and defence contractor co-founded by Peter Thiel, took it over and spent the next six years building Maven into a targeting infrastructure that pulls together satellite imagery, signals intelligence and sensor data to identify targets and carry them through every step from first detection to the order to strike.
[2]> A chatbot did not kill those children. People failed to update a database, and other people built a system fast enough to make that failure lethal. By the start of the Iran war, Maven – the system that had enabled that speed – had sunk into the plumbing, it had become part of the military’s infrastructure, and the argument was all about Claude.
[3]>The building in Minab had been classified as a military facility in a Defense Intelligence Agency database that, according to CNN, had not been updated to reflect that the building had been separated from the adjacent Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps compound and converted into a school, a change that satellite imagery shows had occurred by 2016 at the latest.
I blame everything on the air force AOC concept and the joint targeting cycle. They are, at their core, an attempt to manage every aspect of a war from one room. It 'works' in peace time when you have exactly 3 real decisions to make a day and a staff of hundreds to orchestrate it but in war it is completely unresponsive, blind because all information comes through the telephone game and bought 100% into the idea that 'if all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail' problem. We have bombs. Let's bomb them. This is why we loose wars.
Our operational level of war is junk. We have forgotten how to create a task force that has has a clear mission with a clear duration, resources, battlespace, ROE and, most importantly, authority to act. McChrystal 'rediscovered' empowering small teams that every flag officer rediscovers eventually in war. If your supporting the commander's cycle means enabling them to make all the decisions then you have just decided to loose the war. They can't make all the decisions. They need to expand that decision making power. That is their job. Build teams that have the authority and resources. Let those teams, if needed, also build teams if the problem is too big. Most importantly though, let those teams act. If you can't trust those commanders to make decisions and act on them then you shouldn't have put them in the job. Divide and conquer is the only solution here and the JTS/AOC model of warfare is the antithesis of this.
I wonder if the coordinates for the school were passed to US intel on purpose to have US deeper entrenched into a war with Iran.. Who would benefit from this?
I 100% believe this was done by somebody inside our administration. It’s totally in character for them. Look at what they do to immigrants and our own citizens. They intentionally target children.
But if you wanna look externally, you can’t rule out Israel. They have intentionally bombed a school to kill children in the past, well before Gaza.
Before you take out your pitch fork, remember what the US did in Vietnam. Ugly stuff happens in ideological wars. It is not controversial to say Israel has done similar things.
Also, someone in our very pro-Israel administration claimed they got us into this war. Israel manipulating an ally is completely unsurprising.
But it doesn’t stop at Israel. I think every single ally we have in the Middle East would do the same thing. Everyone they’re fighting already does.
The US under Trump is behaving exactly like a country with intentions of damaging the Western order and antagonising enemies to open new front lines. I think writing off Trump's actions as stupid is wrong, he's malicious.
The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) has an updated tally on defensive and offensive munition expenditures. It's likely not 100% accurate due to the sensitive nature of those figures.
> 11,294 munitions in the first 16 days of the conflict, at a cost of approximately $26 billion.
Incidentally, $26B is a sum in the same ballpark as the cost of eradicating homelessness in the US, ending large-scale hunger worldwide or making significant progress towards safe drinking water for all or the eradication of malaria.
It’s a tale as old as time: start a war to support the military industrial complex. Imagine a $4 billion investment into public transportation or parks. Every 10 years we can invest into a new city instead of bombing some kids overseas (whose siblings, fueled by hatred, then commit terror attacks on the west).
So far, they are not funded to do this for that long. They have floated a $200B bill to congress, which made national news coverage. It would start a huge, prolonged fight over the war and actually force them to ask permission from congress to fight it (barring totally disregarding the constitution which is still a possibility).
Unfortunately I can very well imagine several more months and years of this. We are still fighting a forever war that started in 2001. This is all a generation of Americans will know, and that is sad.
The west should have just used cluster munitions in ballistic missiles. Apparently you can target civilians with those and no one will accuse you of war crimes. Drones hitting residential buildings, airports and critical energy infrastructure? No problem. If you use an F-35 and smart munitions we expect perfect accuracy though.
This war is stupid, poorly planned, and likely to kick off a global recession. Trump and his cabinet lacks intelligent people. All of that is true. But there is also a shocking moral relativism going on that is embarrassing and disheartening to watch.
The US is currently threatening to bomb power plants across Iran, which is a war crime. Yesterday the US spread land mines across a city that have already killed civilians. These are the actions of my government and it's my duty to stand up and be critical of war crimes being committed by my government. The idea that I am also obliged to criticize irans actions is bullshit. I hold my government to a higher standard, that's surprising to you?
Something that a lot of tech people, especially in Silicon Valley, seem to want to forget, is that at every level you still have people making decisions. AI is suggesting but someone, somewhere, still has to make the decision to act on that suggestion.
The immediate concern isn't really fully autonomous systems, it's that the nature and design of recommender/suggestion systems prompt humans to sleepwalk through their responsibilities.
Not sure how you could live with yourself if you were building software that was used to kill children. I know tools can be used in ways you can't anticipate but if you're actively supporting the military in their use of it which in my eyes makes you responsible.
Are Americans not even aware of their own history? The US carpet bombed the SHIT out of Korea and Vietnam. All it did was convince their enemies to fight.
And then in Afghanistan and Iraq the US terrified of every shadow blew up anything that looked suspicious- again only serving their enemies.
It is all just so damn tiresome and America never learns because it literally cannot go 5 years without starting some unnecessary and ultimately futile conflict.
Had Iran done anything to the US as heinous as this one "mistake" in the last 50 years that compares? Imagine if some country did this to us and just brushed it off as a mistake.
In 1979–1981, Iranian revolutionary forces and aligned militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage during the Iran hostage crisis.
In 1983, IRGC-backed proxies carried out the Beirut barracks bombing, a suicide truck attack that killed 241 U.S. service members in Beirut.
In 1983–84, IRGC-backed proxies bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing dozens of Americans and local staff.
In 1984, IRGC-backed proxies kidnapped CIA station chief William Francis Buckley in Beirut, held and tortured him, and he died in captivity in 1985.
In 1984, militants linked to IRGC-backed Hezbollah hijacked Kuwait Airways Flight 221, holding multiple passengers including Americans hostage.
In 1985, Hezbollah operatives hijacked TWA Flight 847, during which U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem was murdered.
In 1996, a truck bomb destroyed the Khobar Towers, killing 19 U.S. Air Force personnel; U.S. authorities later linked the attack to Saudi Hezbollah backed by Iran.
From 2003–2011, IRGC-backed militias in Iraq used EFP roadside bombs and other attacks that killed and wounded hundreds of U.S. troops.
In 2011, U.S. authorities disrupted an alleged IRGC-directed plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which could have caused American civilian casualties.
In 2007, IRGC-backed militants carried out the Karbala provincial headquarters attack, killing five U.S. soldiers.
In the 2010s–2020s, IRGC-backed groups have been linked to attempted or foiled plots against U.S. individuals abroad, including dissidents and officials.
In 2019, IRGC-backed militias attacked the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad.
From 2019–present, IRGC-backed groups have conducted repeated rocket and drone attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria.
In 2024, IRGC-backed militants carried out the Tower 22 drone attack, killing three U.S. service members.
With exception of embassies, most of what you mentioned are military targets and those proxies are native citizens who are attacking hostile aliens. When you send soldiers to other countries what do you expect?
Why US has military presence in every other country? Be more MAGA
Yes please, but start a bit earlier and tell me the white house version of how the US staged a coup against Mossadegh in 1953 to install the Shah regime and control oil (ring a bell?)
That just means that you agree that there has been a war going on for 50 years which was the OPs point. You are agreeing with the person you responded to.
I am not sure why you are operating on such a weird definition of "war" that because 1 thing happened 50+ years ago that changes whats happening now.
Just look at whats happening now. Iran is shooting missiles at all sorts of countries all over the place. (not just the US or israel). Its clearly in a war with a lot of groups right now. It is a silly handwave to pretend like a war isn't going on now, because of something that happened 50 years ago.
Its clearly not unilateral, given how many other countries, that are not the US, have had missiles shot at them by Iran.
As a similar example Russia invaded Ukraine. There is a war going on between them and Ukraine. And when there is a war, countries attack each other. "Who started it" doesn't change the fact that a war is happening.
Your strongest example should be good enough. So far you've got 1) flights between Venezuela and Iran 2) whitehouse.gov.
Even if Trump's Whitehouse was a good source and you took it at face value, most of the items in that list are by Iranian proxy, i.e. Iranian intelligence involvement. So by comparison you'd have to include Israel and CIA actions and then it's just a mess to figure out who's worse.
But even then, I don't see anything in there that's as evil as blowing apart dozens of school children in one blow, mistake or not.
> Within days, the question that organised the coverage was whether Claude, a chatbot made by Anthropic, had selected the school as a target.
I don't buy into that story. While in theory many possibilities may exist, I think this was a targeted hit by the decision-makers in the US military. There are some reasons as to why I think this is the case - for instance, under Hegseth and Trump the lies amplified in general, and truth dies first in war. Fishing boats were claimed to be drug boats. Or the iranian ship that was taken down by a torpedo - that was also deliberate. So, all of what the current mafia in charge does, has a purpose: an evil purpose, but a purpose. I could list some more reasons I think this was not an accident, but I believe the most convincing one is actually that there is a prior incident to this. Not of a school (or, at the least perhaps there was, but I don't quite recall it), but of the chinese embassy.
This happened in 1999. The USA initially also claimed it was an accidental hit. Various other sources then pointed out that this explanation made no sense; a simple one I remember is that a statistics scientist pointed out that the "random hit" theory made no sense. There were others who came to the same conclusion but from a different angle; the statistics example I remember because I read it in a book about statistics a few years after that (that is, I read the book a few years lateron, the initial writing happened much closer to 1999).
The current invasion Trump is doing also carries a strong "contain China" attempt with it. To me, I think it is much more likely that the hit on the school was deliberate. The tactic that is being employed here is to commit to the invasion. This is why you can not buy anything Trump says - you'll see that there is a step-wise escalation path coming from the USA right now. Trump is just the decoy on top; the commitment already happened. You'll see more ground troops being committed as the next step.
People really should not buy into ANYTHING that is coming out of the current US administration. Hegseth also recently went for a copy/paste job from the movie Pulp Fiction, when Samuel Jackson cites a bible verse before violence. Hegseth did not use the same words, of course, and the objective was more aimed on christian fanatics in the country, but they are really trying to push every button here. See also how they tried to sell this as a video game via ads. This government is a lost cause and dictators who want war, be it Putin or Trump, should never ever be trusted anywhere.
The school was located adjacent to (or on the border of) an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) naval compound/base. Evidence (satellite imagery, verified videos, missile fragments consistent with a US Tomahawk cruise missile, and geolocation) shows the area was targeted as part of strikes on that military site
> Within days, the question that organised the coverage was whether Claude, a chatbot made by Anthropic, had selected the school as a target.
This is how organizations like IRGC work. There is always a big campus like area where there is everything, including schools for indoctrination and new future recruits.
We need specific links, though. People always assume that we see the same posts they do—in fact we don't come close to seeing everything (even in the same thread) and rely on users to tell us about the worst comments.
They (the Americans) should have also marked the schools on said military maps of theirs, and hence they could have made a value judgment of "is it worth killing some IRGC men in the middle of nowhere vs. the international backslash of killing school-going children?". It looks like they most probably didn't do that, probably because their "advanced" AI systems didn't bother with marking schools on their military maps.
> This was a choice to use children as human shields
Perhaps we should have, you know, just not bombed that particular fucking site until the end of the fucking school day if it was such a vital target. God forbid we act like a vaguely intelligent country, instead of drunkly screaming "maximum lethality" at every conceivable opportunity.
"As we pass through Khan Shaykhun, we come across a street painted in the colours of the Iranian flag. It leads to a school building that was being used as an Iranian headquarters." "On the wall at the entrance of the toilets, slogans read: "Down with Israel" and "Down with the USA".
It was evident that these headquarters were also evacuated at short notice. We found documents classified as "highly sensitive"."
This is a BBC reporter reporting from Syria after the fall of Assad.
It is strategy for the IRGC and Hamas to operate from civilian infrastructure like schools to gain immunity. That's what's "not a human error".
The Israeli state leaders is proudly declaring superiority of their people, the need for vital space (Lebensraum, the great Israel), segregating their own citizens, conducting pogroms, you have all the doctrine there. Go find out where this book played before and how it all ended up.
I am countering the parent's statement that seems to indicate the US and Israel are intentionally targeting civilian infrastructure systematically for no reason. A lot of this infrastructure is targeted for good reason because it is used for military purposes.
This is totally unrelated to the topic where it seems the one school in question was incorrectly targeted based on what we know today (though not intentionally).
The general framework for justifying collateral damage is that enough care has to be taken to minimize it vs. the value of the military objective being achieved. Attacking an IRGC headquarters intentionally based in a school (e.g. if the example in Syria was to be attacked by Israel for example) still needs to pass this test. I.e. Israel would have to take measures to minimize collateral damage which would be proportional to the military value it gains by hitting the IRGC. But the (Syrian) school would have been considered a legitimate military target and the outrage should be towards the IRGC setting up camp there.
Personal attacks are ofcourse now normal on HN in this new world you like to live in. I'll wear this as a badge of honor from you. Maybe I'll have a T-shirt printed with "One of the worst Zionists we have on this website - Hikkomori".
Just letting people know so they don't have to go through your usual hasbara spiel.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
Sufficiently advanced negligence is indistinguishable from malice.
This is not to say that this administration is definitely not targeting civilians or infrastructure on purpose; just that the end result, and the moral culpability, are the same in either case.
Isn't it a more reasonable explanation that the IDF deliberately had this school bombed because those schoolgirls were the children of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers?
The intentional murder of enemy children is a tactic of the IDF. They've done it for decades.
That theory seems unhinged to me. Somebody is divorced from reality. Hopefully not me.
There are rumors that the IRGC has started to recruit adolescents (again). I'd have an easier time believing that, but where the Middle East is concerned, there is an endless amount of propaganda and hyperbole, so I don't automatically believe what I read. Pardon my condescension, but it would make the comments sections better if everyone did likewise.
kakacik's razor - Never attribute to incompetence of IDF/Mosad that which is adequately explained by laser focus intent to murder and exterminate enemy at all costs, via all avenues, all is allowed.
You can't have a serious discussion of this bombing without addressing the information warfare component. To this day we don't know what actually happened. Between the general public and the facts, there are many middlemen, all with their own distorting factor: the IRGC; the US government; western press outlets such as the Guardian; and the people quoted by the press.
IRGC is making claims that no other party can verify first-hand. Everything from the number of explosions, the extent of the physical damage, the number of wounded and dead, the number of civilians wounded and dead - these are all unverified claims and should be treated as such. Not only is the IRGC obviously biased and incentivized to maximize media pressure on the US and Israel: they are known for information warfare of exactly this nature. To take their statements at face value, and present them as established facts in the opening paragraph, as this article does, is journalistic malpractice.
Again, the basic facts on the ground are not known, yes all parties are projecting narratives with a certainty that we should all be suspicious of.
Without this stable foundation of knowing what actually happened, and why, the very premise of this article collapses on itself.
EDIT: the flurry of responses to this post illustrate the problem. It's difficult to even have a respectful, fact-driven discussion on this topic, because everyone is tempted (and encouraged) to rush to their political battle stations. Nobody wants to discuss information warfare, because they're too busy engaging in it. I think that's worrying and problematic. No matter which "side" you're on, it should be possible to distinguish what is known and what is not; and implementing basic information hygiene. Or do you think you are uniquely immune to disinformation?
You're not wrong but what we can tell from open sources is:
- The building does seem to have actually been a school and "detached" from the rest of the military complex.
- The school the Iranians claim it was does seem to exist even if it's not 100% clear that's the identical location.
- At the time of the attack school would have been in session.
- The signature of the attack seems similar between all the buildings attacked and we have footage showing a Tomahawk hitting the area.
Another thing we can tell is that the US has to know the truth here and isn't coming out with an official statement.
And I'm saying this as someone who thinks the Iranian regime is evil, needs to be struck down, was trying to acquire nuclear weapons etc.
As to the numbers I agree they are to be treated with suspicion. The Iranians are obviously motivated to lie, inflate them, and treat all casualties as civilians. But we can still try and estimate given the size of the building what would be the number of students. We can also estimate the outcome of the missile hitting the building and correlate with the photos and satellite imagery, and until we have better data use those estimates.
I agree with all of that. My worry is that the Guardian article is not doing any of it, and in fact is damaging the framework for even having such a conversation.. Instead they are repeating IRGC statements without attribution, and establishing them as background truth in the first paragraph. Then building an entire article on that flawed premise. Essentially, their article exists in the narrative universe create by the IRGC. I find that incredibly worrying.
My bar for present day journalists and the Guardian specifically is pretty low. The goal for the Guardian is apparently to get clicks and advance their agenda. Journalism and real news reporting is apparently dead. My commentary is more on the specifics of the incident.
I'm not sure why the other reply here was flagged and killed. The US absolutely has NOT acknowledged that they killed school children. The DoW and other government officials have only publicly stated that an investigation is taking place.
This is incorrect. The US government (via Secretary Hegseth) has only confirmed that they are investigating the incident.
What the US has NOT confirmed:
- that they are responsible for the bombing
- who hit the school
- whether the school was an intended target of US strikes
- whether it was struck intentionally
- that it was mistaken for a military site
- any casualty count
- whether there were civilians or children in the casualty count
The US has explicitly DENIED:
- That they deliberately target civilian targets
These are the facts about what the US has actually confirmed. We are all entitled to our opinion of what happened. But we should be able to acknowledge that they are just that: opinions. We don't actually know what happened. And I find it scary and dangerous that so many people, on hacker news and elsewhere, are acting like they do.
> To this day we don't know what actually happened.
I feel like we know enough already. A school was bombed, the ones who did it sucks big time and should be held responsible. Currently, the US and Israel is waging a war against Iran, and one of them dropped the bomb(s), unless suddenly Iran got their hands on American weapons, then that needs to be investigated too, because someone surely dropped the ball at that point.
The basics remain the same, investigations have to be launched to figure out where exactly in the chain of command, someone made a mistake, and then hold that person(s) responsible for their fuck up.
I think it's likely that the explosion was caused by a US strike. But we don't actually know for sure that that's what happened - the US government has not confirmed it.
We also don't know anything about casualties - we only have the IRGC statements, and they are not reliable.
> Have those investigations been launched?
Yes, according to the US government, an investigation is underway. But its starting point is determining what caused the explosion.
How long does it take to look at the coordinates programmed into the cruise missiles? Or to review existing satellite imagery for the location and other intelligence sources?
If this was a school (which seems likely at this point) and if this was a US TLAM that hit it (which also seems likely at this point) then we should expect a lot of casualties when it's hit during school time (which also seems likely). And yes, we shouldn't trust what the IRGC is saying.
I think I'm on your side but in this case the correct course of action for the US would have been to quickly own up to the mistake. There is really not a lot of ambiguity here. This doesn't seem to be a case like "shots were fired from the school window" or some sort of dual use with IRGC having offices in the school. If there was a reason for the targeting then presumably we'd have a statement about it already.
Mistakes can be made and are always made in war. Leaving this open like this is damaging to the war effort.
Are you familiar with the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza? We've been through this sort of circus before... Those of us who paid attention learned to not rush to conclusions, and never, ever trust social media or the western press to overcome or even understand information warfare.
> Are you familiar with the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza?
I am not
> Those of us who paid attention learned to not rush to conclusions, and never, ever trust social media or the western press to overcome or even understand information warfare.
Since you highlight western press can't be trusted to overcome / understand information warfare, would you care to provide some write-ups detailing the viewpoints you hint at, in the context of this Al-Ahli hospital incident?
The Al-Ahli hospital, the one that Israel tried to say was a PIJ missile that misfired?
The Israeli propaganda was false in that case, and they probably hit the hospital. The PIJ missiles' ballistic trajectory did not match with the hospital, and most or all their fuel had burned [1]. I recommend you read the whole text, it's quite short.
But I don't see what you mean here, if the takeaway from Al-Ahli is not to trust the US/Israel when they shift the blame for hitting civilian targets... then applying that lesson here means that we should not trust the US/Israel when they try to shift the blame in this case. The US hit the school. That much is beginning to be obvious.
Congratulations, you found the one fringe publication that contradicts the overwhelming consensus from OSINT and official investigations alike. You wanted so badly Israel to be responsible, that you decided to trust the least credible source possible.
Least credible? Fringe? Forensic Architecture is a very respected source that has done in-depth technical analysis of many, many accidents and incidents, e.g. the Beirut port explosion. Articles from Forensic Architecture are often featured on HN.
It received the Peabody award in 2021. It received the Right Livelihood award in 2024. It is a research unit under the university of London. Its reports have been used as evidence in cases in the Israeli supreme court and in the UN. The project has gotten numerous grants from the European research council, collaborated with Bellingcat, Amnesty international, and ACLED [1]
Your kneejerk reaction to information that contradicts your priors is obvious. If you had bothered to do even a small google search you could have checked what FA actually is, rather than just lash out.
You haven't addressed the fact that the overwhelming OSINT consensus contradicts their claim, making it fringe by definition.
I am very familiar with FA, and with that particular paper. That's the thing with echo chambers: the people inside of it are all repeating the same exact talking points, drawing from the same narrow set of "approved" sources. And in the case of Al-ahli, the set is very, very narrow, so it gets repeated a lot.
Al-ahli is the ultimate test, because the evidence is so one-sided. If you can convince yourself, against overwhelming evidence, that Israel is still responsible - then you can convince yourself of anything.
What have they done to deserve your trust? They started a war that they deny is a war. They told us a year ago they set Iran back a decade. Then they tell us 9 months later they're weeks from a nuclear bomb. I wouldn't trust the warmongers to admit they're child killers.
I haven't said anything about trusting them. I am simply correcting statements about what the US has supposedly "admitted".
It's one thing to say "I think the US did XYZ".
It's quite another to say "It is an objective truth that the US did XYZ, in fact they even admitted it".
Transposed to the Guardian, if they want to write "we think the US did XYZ", they should clearly frame it as an opinion piece. Instead they are writing "it is an objective truth that the US did XYZ" - which is false. That is journalistic malpractice.
It would be journalistic malpractice to avoid reporting on anything that the government does that the government isn't willing to admit publically to doing. It's possible to ascertain facts, even of the actions of the US government, to a level of certainty sufficient to report them as facts, even when the government disputes the facts.
Repeating the IRGC claim that "American forces killed between 175 and 180 people, most of them girls between the ages of seven and 12" without attribution or scrutiny, is not "reporting".
It's fine to be skeptical of the claims of the US government. But the IRGC is also a government - more specifically a totalitarian government built on lies and aggression. To distrust the former while blindly trusting the latter is inconsistent and foolish.
>> Again, the basic facts on the ground are not known
Think for a second WHY that is! They can find and kill the Iranian leaders who will be doing the utmost to conceal their location and yet that can't tell us whose bomb blew up a specific building? Of course they can. They're waiting until people forget and they can final release the result of their 'investigation'.
But I'm noticing that you are only interested in guessing the motives and actions of the US.
Does the IRGC not have motives and agency of their own? Perhaps the explosion was caused by a malfunction of their own missile? Perhaps they lied about children being present? Perhaps they intentionally placed children in a location they knew would be struck? Based on their incentives, doctrine and past behavior, you could make a reasonable case for all of those scenarios.
It's fine to speculate on who did what, and why. But that methodology can be applied in both directions, not just the one that suites your political preference.
I think its fair to treat things that the Trump administration and the Iranian military agree on as facts. If they were distortions that favored one side, we would see pushback from the other. Maybe there are distortions that somehow benefit both of these parties, but it seems unlikely. At minimum, then, this was a school, the Americans bombed it, and children died as a result.
> An ongoing [United States] military investigation has determined that the United States is responsible for a deadly Tomahawk missile strike on an Iranian elementary school, according to U.S. officials and others familiar with the preliminary findings.
That article is based on anonymous sources ("according to [people] familiar with the preliminary findings").
It doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's not an official confirmation by the US government, and it only speaks to the responsibility of the strike, not the various claims of "killed children".
Those sources don't say anything about casualties, or the presence of children. The NYT does its best to make it sound like they do ("responsible for a deadly strike"), but so far the only source for how deadly it is, remains the IRGC. And the NYT happily quotes their claim that the death toll was "at least 175 people".
For what it's worth, I personally believe the US is responsible for the strike. I also think the IRGC is lying about casualties, but there's no way to know for sure, and a US investigation probably won't tell us more on that point.
You’re acting like the U.S. government is a monolithic good faith actor right now. The current administration’s behavior is qualitatively different than past administrations.
Do you also believe this administration will ever officially confirm Renee Good and Alex Pretti were not domestic terrorists?
It’s hard to interpret your points charitably here.
Nobody in the western world cares about either group of dead civilians. They only pretend to care because they think it might benefit their preferred tribe of politicians.
I feel like an intellectual god to have been gifted the brain power to recognize that 150 kids being killed is a awful tragedy, and that converting a building on a military base to a school is recklessly stupid and borderline purposely done as a trap. It's like letting your child play in the road at night, and then being upset when a drunk driver hits them.
Anyone can look at the satellite images from the bombing and see how ridiculous whatever Iran was doing was.[1]
"I understand that the officer killed your unarmed teen son. But you have to understand, in the dark, he appeared to be reaching for a weapon, and the officer feared for his life."
"It's a tragedy that she was raped. But you have to understand, the way she was dressed, she clearly wanted it, she was sending mixed signals, you see."
Anyway. Here's a preschool right next to a military base, it took me about 3 minutes of scrolling around on google maps to find this.
Because the US military publishes maps of the base. Anyone who bombs a school on a US military base is doing it intentionally. China could probably call up the DoD and ask for maps of every base, and they would get it.
If your force your enemy to decide what is and isn't a civilian target, you are the deranged one.
I'm just gonna assume you are an American, just because this is a website who's audience is in large part American. But I might be wrong. Anyway, as such you must at least in passing be familiar with the concept of a "military base" as it is practiced by American society.
> Everything that the average family needs is there; a grocery store, shopping mall, bank, post office, theatre, religious centers, outdoor activities, community center, clubs, dining facilities, gas station, quick stop markets, and, if not a full size hospital, medical clinics. The majority of bases do not have schools physically located on the installation, but the children are educated in the neighboring school systems.
I just googled that so I don't have to write the text myself.
So while you might be technically correct about schools, do you think housing on a military base for personnel and their families is akin to playing on the road at night ?
> I feel like an intellectual god
HN rules prevent me from writing anything snarky here.
Yes, you are correct. Military bases even have schools and kids!
But do you know what else the US does?
The locations of military and non-military buildings is public information, and even intentionally made obvious to anyone. You can get maps of the bases from their websites. You can even go on google maps and see what most of the buildings are. To avoid exactly this situation. And even beyond all that, in the event of military escalation where their is real threat of the bases being hit, the civilians would be evacuated anyway.
(Legitimate) countries at war aren't trying to massacre civilians. They all agreed to that and all take agreed upon steps to stop it. Like at the most basic level issuing uniforms to soldiers so you can clearly see who is a civilian and who is a fighter.
I can assure you that in a war between the US and China, there would be dramatically fewer civilian deaths, because both countries don't fuck around with "military/civilian ambiguity" as a war tactic. Because you or your enemy end up killing a bunch of innocents.
Are you trying to tell me that you believe that the Iranians were under the impression that this school was a secret that the United States did not know about ?
Do you believe that these military buildings were a secret that the Iranians thought the US and Israel don't know about ?
> (Legitimate) countries at war aren't trying to massacre civilians.
You think Israel is not a legitimate country? Cause that just very openly happened and continues to happen.
And maybe you think that killing civilians is not the point, which I don't agree with but I can at least understand why one would come to that conclusion.
But you must at least remember that the US is kind of famous for Hiroshima and Nagasaki - an action based almost in it's entirety on killing civilians.
But even if you want to only defend that "legitimate" countries aren't trying to massacre civilians, you must be able to see that the threshold of killing them if they just happen to be in the way is very low.
The Secretary of Defense of the US recently called for removal of all these rules you alluded to
> We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement.
Look at what is happening even with this lose framework you are referring to in place. Do you think if China invaded the US, the US would not do everything it takes to defeat them, even if it means giving up conventional warfare. You think the US forces would give up a strategic advantage that could be gained by taking off their uniform and continue fighting without it ?
You don't seem aware that Japan armed and trained it's population (Kokumin Giyū Sentōtai), men and women including kids, and mandated them to attack invaders. Another example of deranged theocratic dictatorship. The US doing a land invasion would have almost certainly resulted in far more "civilian" deaths.
Also the Geneva conventions don't apply when fighting an enemy who doesn't abide by them. Its incredibly annoying to fight an enemy that has no problem using ambulances as troop and weapon transports. Or an enemy that refuses to issue uniforms to it's fighters. This isn't even necessarily referring to Israel and Hamas, it was rampant with al qaeda and ISIS.
As for China invading the US? Well Ukraine has managed to keep it above board. It's only these shit head theocratic lunatics that have no problem shoveling civilians into the fire to keep their ass in power. Maybe you aren't aware, but Hamas consoles it's civilians by telling them they are dying for God. Just like Japan trained it's civilians during WWII to die for God (who happened to be the emperor.)
Sure, the easiest way out of your dilemma is to just declare everyone killed to not be a civilian, and define every enemy to be out of scope of any restraint.
By that metric there are never any dead civilians and no rules apply.
Kinda sounds as if you are looking for excuses to make these rules you yourself brought up not apply to any real situation.
I really, really wanted to avoid making fun of of your "gifted brain power".
Your argument is so lazy, I am starting to doubt your godlike intellect.
Uh no, the onus is always on the one doing the attack FFS what's wrong with you?
You are bending over backwards to shift the blame away from an administration that was utterly negligent and reckless and caused an obvious and expected outcome of having "No rules of engagement"
You don't get to blow up a school and say "But a decade ago it was part of the military base!". That's Russia's SOP
It's stupid, lazy, unacceptable, and indefensible in a war of choice. This administration had years to vet targets, and instead eschewed all preparation and fired the people who had been working on preparation.
Turning a military building into a girl's school, and then having this school right next to other military buildings - is this something that happens often? Or were there ulterior motives behind it?
This unknown Guardian contributor writes a missive against "Luddites" while using the typical AI booster arguments that always turn around anti AI arguments.
Just like two five year olds: "You have a big nose." "No, you have a big nose."
We learn from this clown that anti AI people suffer from AI psychosis because they are reading WaPo and Reuters.
> Anthropic and Palantir Technologies Inc. (NYSE: PLTR) today announced a partnership with Amazon Web Services (AWS) to provide U.S. intelligence and defense agencies access to the Claude 3 and 3.5 family of models on AWS. This partnership allows for an integrated suite of technology to operationalize the use of Claude within Palantir’s AI Platform (AIP) while leveraging the security, agility, flexibility, and sustainability benefits provided by AWS.
We know that it integrated Claude and Claude was deemed to be a supply chain risk just before the Iran war. So it is not a huge mental leap to assume what it is being used for.
You won't get an answer from Hegseth. This Guardian "article" is by a Substack blogger who also does not have answers.
The Guardian carrying water for the AI industry. The distinction between Maven and Claude is futile. We get that Maven is Palantir, but it integrates Claude:
Going into a generic rant about anti-AI people after missing sources and believing the Department of War is just extremely poor journalism from the newspaper that destroyed evidence after a command from GCHQ.
I hope this is a single "journalist" and that the Guardian has not been bought.
I assume you actually read the article and didn't just post this after a quick skim, yes? Because saying this:
> The distinction between Maven and Claude is futile
Doesn't make any sense at all when you read the article and understand what Claude actually does in this equation. From the article:
> Neither Claude nor any other LLMs detects targets, processes radar, fuses sensor data or pairs weapons to targets. LLMs are late additions to Palantir’s ecosystem. In late 2024, years after the core system was operational, Palantir added an LLM layer – this is where Claude sits – that lets analysts search and summarise intelligence reports in plain English. But the language model was never what mattered about this system.
The whole point here is that whether an LLM is involved or not is immaterial to the system as a whole, and it's a disservice to the public to focus on LLMs here.
The article you're responding to is making specific operational claims about Claude's (basically non-) relevance. I'd be interested to hear if you're directionally correct, but forgive me if I need more details than "but it integrates Claude".
----------------
Maven is a tool for use in the middle of a war. When both sides are firing, minutes saved can mean lives saved for your side. Those lives, at least partly, balance the risks of hitting a bad target.
This was not a strike made in the middle of a war. If Maven was used in the strike that took out a school, it was being used as part of a sneak attack. Nobody was shooting back while this was being planned. Minutes saved were not lives saved. There should have been a priority placed on getting the targets right. Humans should have been double and triple checking every target by other means. This clearly didn't happen. The school was obviously a school that even had its own website. Humans would have spotted this if they had done more than make their three clicks and move on to the next target.
Whoever made the choice to use Maven to plan a sneak attack without careful checking made an unforced error when they had all the time in the world to prevent it. Whether it was overconfidence in their tools or a complete disregard for the lives of civilians that caused this lapse, they are directly responsible for the deaths of those little girls. I sincerely hope there are (although I doubt there will be) consequences for this person beyond taking that guilt to their grave.
reply