9 ms·

"Three clicks convert a data point on the map into a formal detection and move it into a targeting pipeline. These targets then move through columns representin

by beloch 7mo ago

"Three clicks convert a data point on the map into a formal detection and move it into a targeting pipeline. These targets then move through columns representing different decision-making processes and rules of engagement. The system recommends how to strike each target – which aircraft, drone or missile to use, which weapon to pair with it – what the military calls a “course of action”. The officer selects from the ranked options, and the system, depending on who is using it, either sends the target package to an officer for approval or moves it to execution." ---------------- Maven is a tool for use in the middle of a war. When both sides are firing, minutes saved can mean lives saved for your side. Those lives, at least partly, balance the risks of hitting a bad target. This was not a strike made in the middle of a war. If Maven was used in the strike that took out a school, it was being used as part of a sneak attack. Nobody was shooting back while this was being planned. Minutes saved were not lives saved. There should have been a priority placed on getting the targets right. Humans should have been double and triple checking every target by other means. This clearly didn't happen. The school was obviously a school that even had its own website. Humans would have spotted this if they had done more than make their three clicks and move on to the next target. Whoever made the choice to use Maven to plan a sneak attack without careful checking made an unforced error when they had all the time in the world to prevent it. Whether it was overconfidence in their tools or a complete disregard for the lives of civilians that caused this lapse, they are directly responsible for the deaths of those little girls. I sincerely hope there are (although I doubt there will be) consequences for this person beyond taking that guilt to their grave.

jvanderbot 7mo ago
I recommend looking closely at the New York Times analysis. There were factors that might have mitigated this as a strike target, but it also really did look like a part of the compound (and it originally was!). Yes, with hindsight, we can definitively know, and with sufficient time each target could probably have been positively ID'd, but there was precisely one mis-strike in 1000s of sorties, so this already is a low error rate. TFA discusses 50 specific strikes all of which missed via automated analysis. That doesn't seem the same. I don't disagree there. But this is not a case of hallucination, and an existing website is a signal, not a determinant, of the real situation on the ground. However, you have made a very, very strong assumption that these targets were not carefully evaluated. One that does not seem to be present in TFA or any analysis that I've read. In fact, the article itself quotes those in the know who believe this should have been eliminated as a target.
- SlinkyOnStairs 7mo ago
  > Yes, with hindsight, we can definitively know, and with sufficient time each target could probably have been positively ID'd, but there was precisely one mis-strike in 1000s of sorties, so this already is a low error rate. This is giving them too much credit. Hegseth has already shown himself to entirely disregard the notion of War Crime, even by the US military's own already controversial standards. The double strike on the boats in the caribbean are literally the textbook example in US military textbooks of what not to do, and that it is a warcrime. This was no mistake. It was the obvious outcome of a pattern of reckless action.
- dwa3592 7mo ago
  >>I recommend looking closely at the New York Times analysis. There were factors that might have mitigated this as a strike target, but it also really did look like a part of the compound (and it originally was!). What a ridiculous take. What does "originally was" mean? Maybe you wanna say "previously was"? That building was converted to a school 10 years ago! The intelligence they relied on is 10 years old!!!!! It's recklessness and stupidity dressed as bravery and courage.
  - zippyman55 7mo ago
    It seems these targets get reviewed and excluded if they are no longer targets. To me, it looks like someone was not paying attention for ten yrs.
- dbt00 7mo ago
  How many American schoolchildren have Iran killed in the last 25 years? How many Iranian schoolchildren have America killed? Where's your moral justification for this war of choice if "oops, 137 dead kids is a normal expected outcome"?
  - jazz9k 7mo ago
    [flagged]
embedding-shape 7mo ago
I agree with your overall sentiment, but how realistic is it? Israel/US says they've been hitting thousands of targets (so reality might mean ~hundreds, still a lot), how are they supposed to verify this at all? > Humans should have been double and triple checking every target by other means. How practically would this happen? The US/Israel don't want people on the ground, and people on the ground is exactly the only way you can actually verify stuff like this, not every place in the world is on Google Maps or have a web presence at all, so the only realistic way to verify this would be to visually inspect it in person, something neither parties who started this war want to do. Even better, don't make attacks against other soverign nations that don't pose an immediately and critical threat to you, and this whole conflict could have been avoided in the first place. But no, the president has to be involved in some sort of child-trafficking scheme, so pulling the country into a war seemed preferable to being held responsible, and now we're here, arguing about fucking details that don't matter.
- ok_dad 7mo ago
  In this case, they would have discovered it was a school with a Google search, basically. There’s no excuse.
  - Tostino 7mo ago
    Or the vast satellite network we run. Pretty easy to see it's school children going in and out of the area.
    - bilbo0s 7mo ago
      To be fair, we don't really have the capacity to run satellite surveillance on each and every target we select to engage in a sneak attack. I think sometimes people watch hollywood movies and get the impression that it represents a kind of cataloging of our military capabilities. A demonstration of what we can do to our enemies. With the underlying subtext being "don't mess with us." I just want to gently suggest that not everything we see in movies is factual with respect to military or intelligence capabilities. I'm an old timer. I got off the bus at Quantico in 1991. But even though I'm not in right now, I'd feel confident in betting that we don't have the capacity to surveil that many targets via satellite for, say, 1 week, prior to our attack. (Of course, when I got off the bus at Quantico in '91 I also would have been just as confident in betting that the US would never engage in a first strike. So what do I know?)
btown 7mo ago
I agree with everything you said - but it's also the case that a set of parameters were created that, instead of requiring multi-person validation of target validity and provenance, prioritized speed to provide decision makers with options. This certainly doesn't absolve the person implementing those parameters, but it is equally the responsibility of the very top of the decision-making structure.
YZF 7mo ago
I couldn't find a web site for the school when I searched for one and I also noticed that while schools are generally marked on Google Maps in Iran this school was not. Both are IMO not really relevant or reliable sources of targeting data anyways. I found very little evidence searching online for the school but I did find something that looked like a blog about a school trip. Again though the Internet is not a reliable source of data for targeting - should be obvious. The main way targets should/would be selected is by direct intelligence. E.g. the targets should be identified through satellite or other observations. It's hard to imagine that a building that has operated for some length of time as a school would not have patterns that are visible from satellite vs. military facilities with different patterns. You also don't just randomly attack structures in this sort of surprise attack, you're presumably aiming for some specific people or equipment with some priority/military goal in mind, so you really want to have observed the targets and patterns and have up to date information on their usage. I think what likely happened here is that the entire base was the "unit" of targeting and the mistake was in identifying which buildings were part of the base. In the satellite view the military buildings and the school look very similar (since the building as I understand it used to be part of the base but was repurposed as a school). It's not true that whoever made the error had all the time in the world. Presumably once the order was given there was time pressure given that the strike was to be timed with the other intelligence. In theory the US military should/is supposed to have good processes around this stuff. So we are told. Obviously failed in this case. It is a tragedy.
- megous 7mo ago
  Missing the forest for the trees, are you? Wars of aggression are against UN rules, and US is in the wrong regardless of what it hit. Feels like we're talking here about whether rapist should have known that the rapee was a child or an adult, and they had a good reason to believe it was an adult person (there was mother of the girl standing next to it, so, hard to distinguish...), so yeah, obviously a tragedy they raped a child instead, but it happens sometimes when you rape a lot of people at once. A tragedy, but let's get on with raping more...
  - YZF 7mo ago
fragmede 7mo ago
Was the Iran War Caused by AI Psychosis? https://houseofsaud.com/iran-war-ai-psychosis-sycophancy-rlhf/ https://houseofsaud.com/iran-war-ai-psychosis-sycophancy-rlh...
torginus 7mo ago
I'm not sure how true that is. Enemy factories and command centers don't grow out of the ground overnight. Nor do planes get maintained, armed, fueled and flown to the target zone in the matter of minutes. In preparing such an operation, I'm sure the critical path even with traditional planning methods, is in other places. While I agree, that there are certain scenarios where an important enemy commander or an expensive mobile launcher gets detected, and you only have a window of minutes to hours before its gone, this is not one of those cases. I feel like the military bought some fancy new hammers, and wanted to show the purchase was justified.
shadowgovt 7mo ago
And fundamentally, this is aUS doctrine issue. The US is willing to strike targets in foreign soul with no boots-on-the-ground confirmation of target nature. It's how the Obama administration drone-struck a wedding before this and how a missile got dropped on a Chinese embassy before that. The doctrine itself is flawed.
originalvichy 7mo ago
You have clearly articulated what I’ve personally explained to people. Thank you for that. The nature of the strikes as a part of a thoroughly pre-planned surprise attack lays the entire blame at the planners, approvers and those who executed the strike. The lack of comprehension some people have baffles me, as I’ve had the displeasure of reading several dozens of online posts asking why kids were at school during the strikes. Even giving these people the benefit of the doubt that they do not know that not all countries observe the same weekday/weekend split as in the case of Iran, how in the world is a teacher or a child supposed to know when to hide from a surprise attack? The easier it gets to give people the tools and power of lethal force, the more preventable injuries and death happen to innocent people. The cover of military conflict should not protect from consequences in cases like this. Knowing the demographics of this website, it will not make anyone here safer that there is credible proof of Israel using Whatsapp metadata to source location data of adult men, and executing strikes based on that information. Western media already shared stories of how ordinary cell phone metadata was used to conduct strikes that killed innocent civilians. 15-20 years later the exact same deadly inaccurate methods are being used to quench the leaders’ and planners’ thirst for any results. One day a bomb might fall on any of our homes purely based on some circumstantial proof that wouldn’t even be enough for a traffic violation…
- puelocesar 7mo ago
  > Knowing the demographics of this website Any chance of elaborating on that? I’m new here, so I don’t get it
pasquinelli 7mo ago
> Whether it was overconfidence in their tools or a complete disregard for the lives of civilians that caused this lapse snip it could be both, but we know no. 2, the complete disregard for the lives of civilians, is in play because, whatever else was going on, america was initiating war for the purpose of destabilizing a country, afaict at least, the reasoning has been unclear. destablize means to try to make things fuck up, and that tends to kill people. what people? how? who knows? things fucking up means out of control. at that point it's up to physics, not people. it's like, if i set a house on fire, then later defended that action by claiming to have not known where i started the fire was a nursery. back in the war on terror days america had a habit of blowing up weddings, and then claiming it was an accident. and i would think, accident how? did the missile fire itself?
- sheikhnbake 7mo ago
  A quick explanation of how an 'accident' like that can happen (not a justification and not comprehensive of all scenarios, just from my perspective): Strikes on civilian gatherings are more likely when the only intelligence used to make the decision are IMINT and SIGINT. SIGINT would typically be radio activity of interest. This could be: - Known hostile entity using the radio (example: Taliban member known to US intelligence) - unidentified entities using a known enemy radio frequency (some non-state actors used particular channels for certain communications) - unknown entities communications indicated hostile association/intent. (example: members of ISIS-K discussed direct involvement in the bombing of a children's hospital) So an analyst has determined SIGINT of interest. The signal is then geo-located to an accurate enough place in the AOR to warrant additional collection, typically a drone feed. A reaper or predator is sent it get a direct visual of where the signal was geo-located. Back in the day, the feeds weren't super high definition. Thus, a wedding or funeral just looks like a bunch of potentially military aged males gathering in one place. Some things that could cement a strike authorization is seeing somebody a the wedding with a hand held radio, or collecting more SIGINT in the immediate facility. Someone attending the wedding/funeral is talking on the radio again, maybe the person previously identified as associated with the hostile group. Depending on the conflict, that's more than was needed to authorize a strike and how we wind up reading about these gatherings getting drone striked. Incomplete intelligence and lax rules of engagement
dylan604 7mo ago
We learned that Israel was going to strike, so the US decided to jump on board. Do we know how long of a notice Israel gave the US? What you're attributing to as a thought out plan of attack seems to imply plenty of time. I don't think it's unreasonable for Israel to have learned of the meeting with little notice, deliberated internally for however long, and then told the US about it with not much time. I could totally see where under current Pentagon leadership, three clicks would have been the reaction. Yes, the US had been saber rattling and building pressure. That's probably part of why the Iranian leadership decided to meet. Whatever plans the US might have had went out the window when Israel called up and said we're striking now.
- Hizonner 7mo ago
  May I suggest a better approach to that situation? Israel: Hey, we're gonna start bombing Iran in 15 minutes, so pick your targets! Time's a-wastin'! US: We do not give a fuck who is meeting with who when. If you ever want to see another dime, or another spare part, or another kind word, let alone have us actually do anything, then you aren't gonna do jack shit unless and until we're goddamned good and ready. Otherwise, have fun with the blowback.
  - dylan604 7mo ago
    You may suggest whatever you want, but it means nothing regardless of how sane and rational of a suggestion it might be. This administration has consistently demonstrated that they are not concerned with that.
Jensson 7mo ago
> Whoever made the choice to use Maven to plan a sneak attack without careful checking made an unforced error when they had all the time in the world to prevent it Who said they had all the time in the world? You can't get most of Irans upper leadership in a single room every day when they were publicly trying to hide.
MrSkelter 7mo ago
The US is a war at the behest of Israel and Israel would like the US to fight as it does. There are very recent images from the current war of Israel, Israeli mothers commenting on the fact that their children schools have been taken over by the IDF. She walks past the playground and it’s full IDF trucks. This is in a country that claims it’s legitimate to strike schools and hospitals because they’re being used as cover for the military. Yet what would the response be if Iran was to target is ready children? In Israel, the double standard doesn’t exist because they see the people they’re fighting as less than fully human. The current administration in the US is moving America towards holding the same view because it’s being led by foreign policy experts, who are uniformly staunch Zionists, with a “Hebrew school“ level of understanding of the regions history.

by beloch 7mo ago

jvanderbot 7mo ago

I recommend looking closely at the New York Times analysis. There were factors that might have mitigated this as a strike target, but it also really did look like a part of the compound (and it originally was!). Yes, with hindsight, we can definitively know, and with sufficient time each target could probably have been positively ID'd, but there was precisely one mis-strike in 1000s of sorties, so this already is a low error rate. TFA discusses 50 specific strikes all of which missed via automated analysis. That doesn't seem the same. I don't disagree there. But this is not a case of hallucination, and an existing website is a signal, not a determinant, of the real situation on the ground. However, you have made a very, very strong assumption that these targets were not carefully evaluated. One that does not seem to be present in TFA or any analysis that I've read. In fact, the article itself quotes those in the know who believe this should have been eliminated as a target.

SlinkyOnStairs 7mo ago
> Yes, with hindsight, we can definitively know, and with sufficient time each target could probably have been positively ID'd, but there was precisely one mis-strike in 1000s of sorties, so this already is a low error rate. This is giving them too much credit. Hegseth has already shown himself to entirely disregard the notion of War Crime, even by the US military's own already controversial standards. The double strike on the boats in the caribbean are literally the textbook example in US military textbooks of what not to do, and that it is a warcrime. This was no mistake. It was the obvious outcome of a pattern of reckless action.
dwa3592 7mo ago
>>I recommend looking closely at the New York Times analysis. There were factors that might have mitigated this as a strike target, but it also really did look like a part of the compound (and it originally was!). What a ridiculous take. What does "originally was" mean? Maybe you wanna say "previously was"? That building was converted to a school 10 years ago! The intelligence they relied on is 10 years old!!!!! It's recklessness and stupidity dressed as bravery and courage.
- zippyman55 7mo ago
  It seems these targets get reviewed and excluded if they are no longer targets. To me, it looks like someone was not paying attention for ten yrs.
dbt00 7mo ago
How many American schoolchildren have Iran killed in the last 25 years? How many Iranian schoolchildren have America killed? Where's your moral justification for this war of choice if "oops, 137 dead kids is a normal expected outcome"?
- jazz9k 7mo ago
  [flagged]

embedding-shape 7mo ago

I agree with your overall sentiment, but how realistic is it? Israel/US says they've been hitting thousands of targets (so reality might mean ~hundreds, still a lot), how are they supposed to verify this at all? > Humans should have been double and triple checking every target by other means. How practically would this happen? The US/Israel don't want people on the ground, and people on the ground is exactly the only way you can actually verify stuff like this, not every place in the world is on Google Maps or have a web presence at all, so the only realistic way to verify this would be to visually inspect it in person, something neither parties who started this war want to do. Even better, don't make attacks against other soverign nations that don't pose an immediately and critical threat to you, and this whole conflict could have been avoided in the first place. But no, the president has to be involved in some sort of child-trafficking scheme, so pulling the country into a war seemed preferable to being held responsible, and now we're here, arguing about fucking details that don't matter.

ok_dad 7mo ago
In this case, they would have discovered it was a school with a Google search, basically. There’s no excuse.
- Tostino 7mo ago
  Or the vast satellite network we run. Pretty easy to see it's school children going in and out of the area.
  - bilbo0s 7mo ago
    To be fair, we don't really have the capacity to run satellite surveillance on each and every target we select to engage in a sneak attack. I think sometimes people watch hollywood movies and get the impression that it represents a kind of cataloging of our military capabilities. A demonstration of what we can do to our enemies. With the underlying subtext being "don't mess with us." I just want to gently suggest that not everything we see in movies is factual with respect to military or intelligence capabilities. I'm an old timer. I got off the bus at Quantico in 1991. But even though I'm not in right now, I'd feel confident in betting that we don't have the capacity to surveil that many targets via satellite for, say, 1 week, prior to our attack. (Of course, when I got off the bus at Quantico in '91 I also would have been just as confident in betting that the US would never engage in a first strike. So what do I know?)

btown 7mo ago

I agree with everything you said - but it's also the case that a set of parameters were created that, instead of requiring multi-person validation of target validity and provenance, prioritized speed to provide decision makers with options. This certainly doesn't absolve the person implementing those parameters, but it is equally the responsibility of the very top of the decision-making structure.

YZF 7mo ago

I couldn't find a web site for the school when I searched for one and I also noticed that while schools are generally marked on Google Maps in Iran this school was not. Both are IMO not really relevant or reliable sources of targeting data anyways. I found very little evidence searching online for the school but I did find something that looked like a blog about a school trip. Again though the Internet is not a reliable source of data for targeting - should be obvious. The main way targets should/would be selected is by direct intelligence. E.g. the targets should be identified through satellite or other observations. It's hard to imagine that a building that has operated for some length of time as a school would not have patterns that are visible from satellite vs. military facilities with different patterns. You also don't just randomly attack structures in this sort of surprise attack, you're presumably aiming for some specific people or equipment with some priority/military goal in mind, so you really want to have observed the targets and patterns and have up to date information on their usage. I think what likely happened here is that the entire base was the "unit" of targeting and the mistake was in identifying which buildings were part of the base. In the satellite view the military buildings and the school look very similar (since the building as I understand it used to be part of the base but was repurposed as a school). It's not true that whoever made the error had all the time in the world. Presumably once the order was given there was time pressure given that the strike was to be timed with the other intelligence. In theory the US military should/is supposed to have good processes around this stuff. So we are told. Obviously failed in this case. It is a tragedy.

megous 7mo ago
Missing the forest for the trees, are you? Wars of aggression are against UN rules, and US is in the wrong regardless of what it hit. Feels like we're talking here about whether rapist should have known that the rapee was a child or an adult, and they had a good reason to believe it was an adult person (there was mother of the girl standing next to it, so, hard to distinguish...), so yeah, obviously a tragedy they raped a child instead, but it happens sometimes when you rape a lot of people at once. A tragedy, but let's get on with raping more...
- YZF 7mo ago

fragmede 7mo ago

Was the Iran War Caused by AI Psychosis? https://houseofsaud.com/iran-war-ai-psychosis-sycophancy-rlhf/ https://houseofsaud.com/iran-war-ai-psychosis-sycophancy-rlh...

torginus 7mo ago

I'm not sure how true that is. Enemy factories and command centers don't grow out of the ground overnight. Nor do planes get maintained, armed, fueled and flown to the target zone in the matter of minutes. In preparing such an operation, I'm sure the critical path even with traditional planning methods, is in other places. While I agree, that there are certain scenarios where an important enemy commander or an expensive mobile launcher gets detected, and you only have a window of minutes to hours before its gone, this is not one of those cases. I feel like the military bought some fancy new hammers, and wanted to show the purchase was justified.

shadowgovt 7mo ago

And fundamentally, this is aUS doctrine issue. The US is willing to strike targets in foreign soul with no boots-on-the-ground confirmation of target nature. It's how the Obama administration drone-struck a wedding before this and how a missile got dropped on a Chinese embassy before that. The doctrine itself is flawed.

originalvichy 7mo ago

You have clearly articulated what I’ve personally explained to people. Thank you for that. The nature of the strikes as a part of a thoroughly pre-planned surprise attack lays the entire blame at the planners, approvers and those who executed the strike. The lack of comprehension some people have baffles me, as I’ve had the displeasure of reading several dozens of online posts asking why kids were at school during the strikes. Even giving these people the benefit of the doubt that they do not know that not all countries observe the same weekday/weekend split as in the case of Iran, how in the world is a teacher or a child supposed to know when to hide from a surprise attack? The easier it gets to give people the tools and power of lethal force, the more preventable injuries and death happen to innocent people. The cover of military conflict should not protect from consequences in cases like this. Knowing the demographics of this website, it will not make anyone here safer that there is credible proof of Israel using Whatsapp metadata to source location data of adult men, and executing strikes based on that information. Western media already shared stories of how ordinary cell phone metadata was used to conduct strikes that killed innocent civilians. 15-20 years later the exact same deadly inaccurate methods are being used to quench the leaders’ and planners’ thirst for any results. One day a bomb might fall on any of our homes purely based on some circumstantial proof that wouldn’t even be enough for a traffic violation…

puelocesar 7mo ago
> Knowing the demographics of this website Any chance of elaborating on that? I’m new here, so I don’t get it

pasquinelli 7mo ago

> Whether it was overconfidence in their tools or a complete disregard for the lives of civilians that caused this lapse snip it could be both, but we know no. 2, the complete disregard for the lives of civilians, is in play because, whatever else was going on, america was initiating war for the purpose of destabilizing a country, afaict at least, the reasoning has been unclear. destablize means to try to make things fuck up, and that tends to kill people. what people? how? who knows? things fucking up means out of control. at that point it's up to physics, not people. it's like, if i set a house on fire, then later defended that action by claiming to have not known where i started the fire was a nursery. back in the war on terror days america had a habit of blowing up weddings, and then claiming it was an accident. and i would think, accident how? did the missile fire itself?

sheikhnbake 7mo ago
A quick explanation of how an 'accident' like that can happen (not a justification and not comprehensive of all scenarios, just from my perspective): Strikes on civilian gatherings are more likely when the only intelligence used to make the decision are IMINT and SIGINT. SIGINT would typically be radio activity of interest. This could be: - Known hostile entity using the radio (example: Taliban member known to US intelligence) - unidentified entities using a known enemy radio frequency (some non-state actors used particular channels for certain communications) - unknown entities communications indicated hostile association/intent. (example: members of ISIS-K discussed direct involvement in the bombing of a children's hospital) So an analyst has determined SIGINT of interest. The signal is then geo-located to an accurate enough place in the AOR to warrant additional collection, typically a drone feed. A reaper or predator is sent it get a direct visual of where the signal was geo-located. Back in the day, the feeds weren't super high definition. Thus, a wedding or funeral just looks like a bunch of potentially military aged males gathering in one place. Some things that could cement a strike authorization is seeing somebody a the wedding with a hand held radio, or collecting more SIGINT in the immediate facility. Someone attending the wedding/funeral is talking on the radio again, maybe the person previously identified as associated with the hostile group. Depending on the conflict, that's more than was needed to authorize a strike and how we wind up reading about these gatherings getting drone striked. Incomplete intelligence and lax rules of engagement

dylan604 7mo ago

We learned that Israel was going to strike, so the US decided to jump on board. Do we know how long of a notice Israel gave the US? What you're attributing to as a thought out plan of attack seems to imply plenty of time. I don't think it's unreasonable for Israel to have learned of the meeting with little notice, deliberated internally for however long, and then told the US about it with not much time. I could totally see where under current Pentagon leadership, three clicks would have been the reaction. Yes, the US had been saber rattling and building pressure. That's probably part of why the Iranian leadership decided to meet. Whatever plans the US might have had went out the window when Israel called up and said we're striking now.

Hizonner 7mo ago
May I suggest a better approach to that situation? Israel: Hey, we're gonna start bombing Iran in 15 minutes, so pick your targets! Time's a-wastin'! US: We do not give a fuck who is meeting with who when. If you ever want to see another dime, or another spare part, or another kind word, let alone have us actually do anything, then you aren't gonna do jack shit unless and until we're goddamned good and ready. Otherwise, have fun with the blowback.
- dylan604 7mo ago
  You may suggest whatever you want, but it means nothing regardless of how sane and rational of a suggestion it might be. This administration has consistently demonstrated that they are not concerned with that.

Jensson 7mo ago

> Whoever made the choice to use Maven to plan a sneak attack without careful checking made an unforced error when they had all the time in the world to prevent it Who said they had all the time in the world? You can't get most of Irans upper leadership in a single room every day when they were publicly trying to hide.

MrSkelter 7mo ago

The US is a war at the behest of Israel and Israel would like the US to fight as it does. There are very recent images from the current war of Israel, Israeli mothers commenting on the fact that their children schools have been taken over by the IDF. She walks past the playground and it’s full IDF trucks. This is in a country that claims it’s legitimate to strike schools and hospitals because they’re being used as cover for the military. Yet what would the response be if Iran was to target is ready children? In Israel, the double standard doesn’t exist because they see the people they’re fighting as less than fully human. The current administration in the US is moving America towards holding the same view because it’s being led by foreign policy experts, who are uniformly staunch Zionists, with a “Hebrew school“ level of understanding of the regions history.