Wasn't it right next to a military base, and previously used as part of that military base? And therefore a reasonable part of the targeting list that should've gotten more scrutiny but just didn't?
This feels like someone wanted to slander the US military actions, could only find one unambiguously negative thing, so then they pontificated on that.
I don’t understand your attitude. The slaughter of hundreds of children seems genuinely inherently upsetting and unacceptable to me. I don’t see why an element of negligence would make this something to just “not pontificate on” in a court of law or in public discourse.
How exactly does an atrocity "trigger" a bombing of a school? Do you feel entitled to some atrocity credits when your opponent commits an atrocity? Fill in the gaps for me.
You're implying it was intentional, when it clearly was not. I'd be OK with calling it criminal negligence.
My annoyance was the focus on something that aligns with a narrative some people love to push (US bad), and ignoring the bigger issues that actually plague the Iranian people that just get ignored because no one actually cares.
> This feels like someone wanted to slander the US military actions, could only find one unambiguously negative thing, so then they pontificated on that.
If a soldier on the ground had called in the airstrike, there is a good chance they would be in military prison.
The fact that the administration itself did it means nothing will happen.
Always know what you're shooting at, especially if it changed purposes over a decade ago.
This feels like someone wanted to slander the US military actions, could only find one unambiguously negative thing, so then they pontificated on that.