Comment by BariumBlue

6 days ago

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.

9 comments

BariumBlue

Reply
trehalose  6 days ago

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

  • BariumBlue  6 days ago

    [flagged]

    • carefree-bob  5 days ago

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

      I feel like you are missing some steps there.

      1 reply →

    • GordonS  6 days ago

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

esseph  6 days 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.

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

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

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

  • HappyPanacea  6 days ago

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

    No, they wouldn't and neither would they in any other military; most militaries don't punish most war crimes let alone what looks like negligence.