Rendered at 16:14:17 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
dashzebra 4 hours ago [-]
> The death toll from the attack on an elementary school in Minab climbed past 165, most of them under age 12, with nearly 100 others wounded, according to Iranian health officials.
Aside from the obvious horrifyng aspect of this, that's also a lot of people who are going to remember this sorely. Pretty sure none of this is going to be beneficial to the future of anyone involved, on both sides.
C'mon, only 2 years and 9.5 months to go...
14 hours ago [-]
Dig1t 11 hours ago [-]
They did a double tap strike on a girls school.
i.e. they blew up a school with kids in it, then when people went in to try and rescue the survivors they struck the school again to kill the rescuers.
Based on a quick skim it looks like he's talking about combatant deaths? I suppose it's technically supports the claim of "maximize death", but in the broader context of civilian casualties it's a bit misleading. Also, isnt the whole point of a military to kill enemy combatants? It might not be an explicit objective, and there are limits to what kinds of killings are allowed, but at the same time I don't think there's any military trying to minimize deaths either, eg. by using less lethal weapons.
AlotOfReading 32 minutes ago [-]
The point of a military is to achieve political goals, not specifically to kill. Notice all the rules around PoWs and how the most common role militaries play is deterrence.
krapp 29 minutes ago [-]
>Based on a quick skim it looks like he's talking about combatant deaths?
You should have read the article more closely.
Hegseth describes the war in Iran very differently. At a news conference last week, he said it would have “no stupid rules of engagement.” In another, he said that the U.S. military would shower “death and destruction from the sky all day long.”
Today’s campaign isn’t about enduring freedom. It’s called Operation Epic Fury. “Maximum lethality, not tepid legality,” Hegseth said earlier this year. “Violent effect, not politically correct.”
What part of this language leads you to believe he's only talking about combatant deaths?
quickthrowman 4 hours ago [-]
Nobody could’ve predicted that putting an abusive alcoholic in charge of the DoD would lead to this. Oh wait, plenty of people predicted this.
There are no leaders in the current administration, only self-absorbed sycophants.
remarkEon 13 hours ago [-]
>They have explicit stated their disgust for the rules of engagement.
Which ones? The ones from the GWOT? Those rules of "engagement"?
Aside from the obvious horrifyng aspect of this, that's also a lot of people who are going to remember this sorely. Pretty sure none of this is going to be beneficial to the future of anyone involved, on both sides.
C'mon, only 2 years and 9.5 months to go...
i.e. they blew up a school with kids in it, then when people went in to try and rescue the survivors they struck the school again to kill the rescuers.
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2026/3/12/who-bombed-the-...
Our leadership obviously does not care at all about civilian lives.
The same is going on in Israel - covering up of war crimes, covering of sexual and other abuse of prisoners
Maybe this is a different US now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-...
What exactly is the lie then?
Or really the article itself which also reiterates why the OP is a lie
Source?
You should have read the article more closely.
What part of this language leads you to believe he's only talking about combatant deaths?There are no leaders in the current administration, only self-absorbed sycophants.
Which ones? The ones from the GWOT? Those rules of "engagement"?
https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4418...