← Back to context

Comment by unrented7977

5 days ago

The intent is to kill doctors, firefighters, first responders. In pretty much all situations this is considered an atrocity, morally repugnant, evil, etc.

These are civillians putting themselves in danger for the express purpose of helping other civilians. I shouldn't have to explain that killing civilians is a bad thing.

From the videos, the missiles struck relatively quickly - what kind of duration between strikes counts as double tap?

  • Are you really splitting hairs about this? Does it matter if it was 20 minutes and not 30? Does that exculpate them for bombing a school?

    I find your line of questions repugnant, in the sense that it would seem you're examining it from every angle possible to find one tiny weakness that could help you dismantle the simple fact that they bombed a school full of children.

    • Yeah, the whole thing is based on armchair assessments to begin with.

      1) I dont think all the involved military leaders are such cartoon villians that they would intentionally strike a school full of kids

      2) I especially dont think they would do so with the intent of a follow up strike exclusively for killing the first responders to the atrocity from (1)

      Delivering two bombs to a military target doesn't seem unreasonable. The fact that two missiles struck the school is not evidence of (1) OR (2). If there were significant intentional delay, that would change my assessment. There doesn't seem to be, in this case.

      2 replies →