← Back to context

Comment by richardfeynman

7 hours ago

The main source in that Wikipedia article is "According to the IRGC." Trusting any belligerent in a war is silly, but given its history, trusting the IRGC during wartime is even sillier. No independent body like the Red Crescent (which is counting casualties in Iran) verified this. It's all "trust me, bro."

USCENTCOM and the IAF both rejected these assertions.

You should demand some evidence for the IRGC's claim. If the claim is that the US or Israel did it, why doesn't the IRGC show the munition used? Or any OSINT data, like where the munition was fired from, its trajectory, etc. The IRGC has been firing from the IRGC base where this school was located. It could just as easily have been a failed IRGC munition.

Also, was this "school" by an IRGC base actually a school, or did it serve a military purpose? Surely you can't know the answer to this, so it's tough for you to judge the military necessity of the strike.

Finally, what's the claim, really? That western powers intentionally struck a school and killed these kids to advance their war aims? Or that it was an accident? If the former, an explanation for "how" is required; and if the latter (and if it did indeed happen) it's the kind of collateral damage that occurs in all wars.

9 comments

richardfeynman

Reply
verteu  5 hours ago

This "debunks" nothing, it's merely a demand for more evidence.

  • richardfeynman  4 hours ago

    Step 1. OP makes a positive claim, repeating an IRGC narrative.

    Step 2. I point out there’s no good evidence supporting it.

    Step 3. You reframe that as "you’re just demanding more evidence."

    That’s backwards. If someone claims something extraordinary happened, the burden is on them to provide evidence. Showing that the current evidence doesn’t support the claim is a perfectly valid rebuttal.

    Otherwise we could do this with anything:

    kid: "There’s a ghost in my room." dad: "I don't hear a ghost. I don't see one. There’s no heat, sound, footprints..." kid: "That doesn’t mean there's no ghost. You’re just demanding more evidence.”

tradertef  2 hours ago

>> what's the claim, really? That western powers intentionally struck a school and killed these kids

Israel or US or both struck a school and killed these kids. Nobody knows whether it was intentional or not. And this is not the first time Israel bombed schools or hospitals.

Mental gymnastics done to skew facts is amazing.

  • richardfeynman  2 hours ago

    nzrf wrote: "Do you really believe killing 175 children[0] will bring peace and prosperity to the Iranian people?"

    The implication is that someone thought that it would. I am saying nobody in the US or Israel thought bombing a children's school would bring peace to the iranian people. In fact, both the USAF and IAF deny they hit a school. There is no evidence the IRGC has put forward to support its claim. Without such evidence, it doesn't make sense to believe it.

    Also, you talk about mental gymnastics while defending IRGC propaganda and spewing nonsense like "Israel bombed hospitals." If you're so confident that Israel has bombed hospital buildings, can you tell me which they bombed, when they did this, and any OSINT details like the munition used?