← Back to context

Comment by senordevnyc

5 days ago

It makes a huge, huge difference. Gross criminal negligence that results in the deaths of many civilians should of course be fully investigated and prosecuted, but it’s not the kind of pure evil that would do this intentionally. And I don’t believe you think they’re actually the same either.

16 comments

senordevnyc

Reply
albatross79  5 days ago

It is the same. At a certain level, intentions don't matter any more.

  • mahboi  5 days ago

    This is what you say when there's been a repeated pattern of negligence. They struck a school once (edit: well one event with multiple strikes). The school was attached to a navy building. There should still be an investigation into the attack.

    • cogman10  5 days ago

      There was no reason to strike Iran in the first place. The absurd claim that "they were about to get nukes in 3 days!" is something that Israel has been claiming for 20 years. Our own intelligence agencies have said that they were not developing nukes.

      If this was a military command center, this would still be a war crime. The US was not at war with Iran before it attacked them.

      Unprovoked aggression is completely wrong.

      9 replies →

    • albatross79  5 days ago

      Magnitude matters just as much. If they struck your child's school im pretty sure you wouldn't care if it was the first or second occurrence.

krapp  5 days ago

"Secretary of War" Pete Hegseth has literally stated that war crimes are now American military policy. Not that they were really off the table for the US to begin with, but we're no longer even pretending to care about the rules, because rules are for soyboy virgin cucks and our warfighters are warmaxxing Spartan chads. "Maximum lethality, not tepid legality."

We should assume it was intentional.