11 ms·

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 li

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]
  - vkou 7mo ago
    There are plenty of military bases next to elementary schools in the US. Where do you think the kids of soldiers go to school?
  - sophacles 7mo ago
    The us has over 150 elementary schools on military bases. If you use a more colloquial definition of military base, many many national guard armories are on the same block as elementary schools or even right next to them. Can you cite anything that says all iranian military bases are next to elementary schools? If they are on ALL bases, that makes hitting an elementary school on base less forgivable, not more, because if its a fact of every iranian military base, it's a lot harder to claim good intelligence and also that they didn't check that the part of base being bombed was the school. Also, how is that relevant?
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - pphysch 7mo ago
    We do. Grocery stores (commissaries) and residential units as well.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- HDThoreaun 7mo ago
gopher_space 7mo ago
What are you doing?
Denzel 7mo ago
So I read the entire TFA, where do you see “quotes [from] those in the know who believe this should have been eliminated as a target”? I saw no such quotes about the school in TFA. Maybe I missed it. > there was precisely one mis-strike in 1000s of sorties How did you verify this? Because I’ll remind you, the U.S. administration denied responsibility for some time before owning up to this due to public pressure. Absent public pressure, I guess we would’ve had zero mis-strikes. > so this already is a low error rate As a father of similarly aged daughters, I can’t express enough how grotesque and disturbing the term “error rate” is here. We targeted and killed young children. Plain and simple. > However, you have made a very, very strong assumption that these targets were not carefully evaluated. Let’s take the opposing assumption that this target was carefully evaluated then. Please reason through the implications now?
- jvanderbot 7mo ago
  I will try to respond to all these independent threads, but we can't continue all of them at once. > . “These aren’t just nameless, faceless targets,” he said later. “This is a place where people are going to feel ramifications for a long time.” The targeting cycle had been fast enough to hit 50 buildings and too fast to discover it was hitting the wrong ones. > The air force’s own targeting guide, in effect during the Iraq war, said this was never supposed to happen. Published in 1998, it described the six functions of targeting as “intertwined”, with the targeteer moving “back” to refine objectives and “forward” to assess feasibility. “The best analysis,” the manual stated, “is reasoned thought with facts and conclusions, not a checklist.” > A former senior government official asked the obvious question: “The building was on a target list for years. Yet this was missed, and the question is how.” --- > Please reason through the implications now? It was a mistake. My girls are about to enter this level of school, as well (cool parent card). A mistake/error/tragedy can all accurately be used to describe this. It's horrible it happened. All I'm saying is that no process is perfect. It is not excusable, but it is unfortunately understandable how it happened in this situation. > 1000s 1000s is fairly easily understood. 1/1000 is inferred b/c as you say, "public pressure" sprang up immediately after this one bombing. Iran regularly posts pictures and videos online, and human rights orgs are clamoring to find evidence. Either we are really good at suppressing the world except for this one case or there aren't that many schools being bombed. We cannot be simultaneously horrible at picking targets and suppressing evidence and also great at it in every other case. Planet labs themselves provided the pictures - they are freely available. Yes maybe the machine lumbers on, stomping on kids, or maybe we've learned our lesson and are now perfect, but this seems like the kind of mistake that can happen, and it seems likely that the analysts involved here are now benched and I wouldn't be surprised if some corrections are happening internally. These are human beings, despite what the article would have you believe, that are doing the best they can. > we targeted and killed young children We killed young kids, but not on purpose. We targeted a building and intent matters. I refuse to believe anyone in the decision chain would move forward if they believed kids were going to be killed. If you do - how can you? Why would they? We're going to quickly get into hypotheticals here. There's a lot of open threads, and believe me I hate with the fullest extent of the word violence against children. We can leave it at that.
yabutlivnWoods 7mo ago
Wouldn't have been looking for targets if senile old fucks looking to deflect from their personal liabilities hadn't started shooting. AI didn't do shit here. Stupid people built the AI and the weapons and applied them. Any other argument is intentional obfuscation. You all are falling for propaganda.
- jvanderbot 7mo ago
  That is actually the point of the article, if you had read it
  - yabutlivnWoods 7mo ago
    Why? You just saw I got the point without reading it. Am aware content of media coming from either side is so normalized there is little value giving either my attention for free. I am not susceptible to Fox News fear mongering and already read 1984 among others. Neither are going to say anything novel. They're just engaged in barter for food and shelter. I spent the time engaged in more useful endeavors to those around me and myself.
- torginus 7mo ago
  It's almost as if AI's purpose is to shift blame, saying that the 'computer did it', in which case these deliberately unreliable AI systems are used, so that responsibility can be avoided, or smeared across the command chain, so every person was only responsible for an innocious part of the whole disaster. A computer can never be held accountable Therefore a computer must never make a management decision
megous 7mo ago
For someone that interested in precision of supporting claims with evidence, you make pretty ridiculous and completely unsupported claims yourself, like "there was precisely one mis-strike in 1000s of sorties".
spaghetdefects 7mo ago
The New York Times are the same people who spread the lie about Iraq having WMDs, they are not credible, and in fact have been proven to be incredibly biased when it comes to wars in the Middle East. Israel and the US targeted many schools in Gaza. They killed tens of thousands of children. This strike was clearly intentional and very much in line with all other Zionist actions.
scuff3d 7mo ago
I'm sure it's a comfort to the parents and families of 150 dead kids that this is actually a very low error rate.
antinomicus 7mo ago
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the US should not be in this war at all. How people have already moved on from that to making monstrous posts like this makes me sick.
torginus 7mo ago
And a very very true one. If the US military had maps at least the quality of local tourist ones, or Google Maps, they could have know basically the location of every ice cream shop, supermarket, school, and military building. I would say that should be pretty much a prerequisite for launching an attack, (at least map out the city block around the target). The US has been eying to strike Iran for decades. Mapping enemy targets is basically one of the biggest tasks (in scope) intelligence agencies undertake, and can be done in peacetime. There was no extreme time pressure here, this was just a lack of due diligence and operational sloppiness. One of the key stated goals of this war, is to have the Iranian people topple their totalitarian government, thereby avoiding having to fight a ground war, and as such, goodwill is extremely important. The damage this strike did to that goodwill outweighs any potential military advantage the US possibly could get out of it.
- indubioprorubik 7mo ago
  What if the enemy sets up hopsitals and schools on military bases?
  - sosomoxie 7mo ago
    The US has hospitals and schools on military bases.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
  - torginus 7mo ago
    I'm not talking about hypothetical scenarios, I'm talking about this, where there was little time pressure, yet they didn't to basic due diligence.
anigbrowl 7mo ago
Not sure if astonishingly credulous or just pretending. Iran claims 600 schools have been damaged, with over 1000 students killed. I doubt the veracity of those numbers, but not as much as I doubt the US claims of benign omniscience in targeting and invulnerability from being targeted.
phs318u 7mo ago
Who said there’s only been one mis-strike among 1000s of sorties? There’s been one mis-strike so egregiously wrong that even the western media call it out. There would be many more that don’t make it onto the front pages of first world media.

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]
- vkou 7mo ago
  There are plenty of military bases next to elementary schools in the US. Where do you think the kids of soldiers go to school?
- sophacles 7mo ago
  The us has over 150 elementary schools on military bases. If you use a more colloquial definition of military base, many many national guard armories are on the same block as elementary schools or even right next to them. Can you cite anything that says all iranian military bases are next to elementary schools? If they are on ALL bases, that makes hitting an elementary school on base less forgivable, not more, because if its a fact of every iranian military base, it's a lot harder to claim good intelligence and also that they didn't check that the part of base being bombed was the school. Also, how is that relevant?
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- pphysch 7mo ago
  We do. Grocery stores (commissaries) and residential units as well.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
HDThoreaun 7mo ago

gopher_space 7mo ago

What are you doing?

Denzel 7mo ago

So I read the entire TFA, where do you see “quotes [from] those in the know who believe this should have been eliminated as a target”? I saw no such quotes about the school in TFA. Maybe I missed it. > there was precisely one mis-strike in 1000s of sorties How did you verify this? Because I’ll remind you, the U.S. administration denied responsibility for some time before owning up to this due to public pressure. Absent public pressure, I guess we would’ve had zero mis-strikes. > so this already is a low error rate As a father of similarly aged daughters, I can’t express enough how grotesque and disturbing the term “error rate” is here. We targeted and killed young children. Plain and simple. > However, you have made a very, very strong assumption that these targets were not carefully evaluated. Let’s take the opposing assumption that this target was carefully evaluated then. Please reason through the implications now?

jvanderbot 7mo ago
I will try to respond to all these independent threads, but we can't continue all of them at once. > . “These aren’t just nameless, faceless targets,” he said later. “This is a place where people are going to feel ramifications for a long time.” The targeting cycle had been fast enough to hit 50 buildings and too fast to discover it was hitting the wrong ones. > The air force’s own targeting guide, in effect during the Iraq war, said this was never supposed to happen. Published in 1998, it described the six functions of targeting as “intertwined”, with the targeteer moving “back” to refine objectives and “forward” to assess feasibility. “The best analysis,” the manual stated, “is reasoned thought with facts and conclusions, not a checklist.” > A former senior government official asked the obvious question: “The building was on a target list for years. Yet this was missed, and the question is how.” --- > Please reason through the implications now? It was a mistake. My girls are about to enter this level of school, as well (cool parent card). A mistake/error/tragedy can all accurately be used to describe this. It's horrible it happened. All I'm saying is that no process is perfect. It is not excusable, but it is unfortunately understandable how it happened in this situation. > 1000s 1000s is fairly easily understood. 1/1000 is inferred b/c as you say, "public pressure" sprang up immediately after this one bombing. Iran regularly posts pictures and videos online, and human rights orgs are clamoring to find evidence. Either we are really good at suppressing the world except for this one case or there aren't that many schools being bombed. We cannot be simultaneously horrible at picking targets and suppressing evidence and also great at it in every other case. Planet labs themselves provided the pictures - they are freely available. Yes maybe the machine lumbers on, stomping on kids, or maybe we've learned our lesson and are now perfect, but this seems like the kind of mistake that can happen, and it seems likely that the analysts involved here are now benched and I wouldn't be surprised if some corrections are happening internally. These are human beings, despite what the article would have you believe, that are doing the best they can. > we targeted and killed young children We killed young kids, but not on purpose. We targeted a building and intent matters. I refuse to believe anyone in the decision chain would move forward if they believed kids were going to be killed. If you do - how can you? Why would they? We're going to quickly get into hypotheticals here. There's a lot of open threads, and believe me I hate with the fullest extent of the word violence against children. We can leave it at that.

yabutlivnWoods 7mo ago

Wouldn't have been looking for targets if senile old fucks looking to deflect from their personal liabilities hadn't started shooting. AI didn't do shit here. Stupid people built the AI and the weapons and applied them. Any other argument is intentional obfuscation. You all are falling for propaganda.

jvanderbot 7mo ago
That is actually the point of the article, if you had read it
- yabutlivnWoods 7mo ago
  Why? You just saw I got the point without reading it. Am aware content of media coming from either side is so normalized there is little value giving either my attention for free. I am not susceptible to Fox News fear mongering and already read 1984 among others. Neither are going to say anything novel. They're just engaged in barter for food and shelter. I spent the time engaged in more useful endeavors to those around me and myself.
torginus 7mo ago
It's almost as if AI's purpose is to shift blame, saying that the 'computer did it', in which case these deliberately unreliable AI systems are used, so that responsibility can be avoided, or smeared across the command chain, so every person was only responsible for an innocious part of the whole disaster. A computer can never be held accountable Therefore a computer must never make a management decision

megous 7mo ago

For someone that interested in precision of supporting claims with evidence, you make pretty ridiculous and completely unsupported claims yourself, like "there was precisely one mis-strike in 1000s of sorties".

spaghetdefects 7mo ago

The New York Times are the same people who spread the lie about Iraq having WMDs, they are not credible, and in fact have been proven to be incredibly biased when it comes to wars in the Middle East. Israel and the US targeted many schools in Gaza. They killed tens of thousands of children. This strike was clearly intentional and very much in line with all other Zionist actions.

scuff3d 7mo ago

I'm sure it's a comfort to the parents and families of 150 dead kids that this is actually a very low error rate.

antinomicus 7mo ago

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the US should not be in this war at all. How people have already moved on from that to making monstrous posts like this makes me sick.

torginus 7mo ago

And a very very true one. If the US military had maps at least the quality of local tourist ones, or Google Maps, they could have know basically the location of every ice cream shop, supermarket, school, and military building. I would say that should be pretty much a prerequisite for launching an attack, (at least map out the city block around the target). The US has been eying to strike Iran for decades. Mapping enemy targets is basically one of the biggest tasks (in scope) intelligence agencies undertake, and can be done in peacetime. There was no extreme time pressure here, this was just a lack of due diligence and operational sloppiness. One of the key stated goals of this war, is to have the Iranian people topple their totalitarian government, thereby avoiding having to fight a ground war, and as such, goodwill is extremely important. The damage this strike did to that goodwill outweighs any potential military advantage the US possibly could get out of it.

indubioprorubik 7mo ago
What if the enemy sets up hopsitals and schools on military bases?
- sosomoxie 7mo ago
  The US has hospitals and schools on military bases.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- torginus 7mo ago
  I'm not talking about hypothetical scenarios, I'm talking about this, where there was little time pressure, yet they didn't to basic due diligence.

anigbrowl 7mo ago

Not sure if astonishingly credulous or just pretending. Iran claims 600 schools have been damaged, with over 1000 students killed. I doubt the veracity of those numbers, but not as much as I doubt the US claims of benign omniscience in targeting and invulnerability from being targeted.

phs318u 7mo ago

Who said there’s only been one mis-strike among 1000s of sorties? There’s been one mis-strike so egregiously wrong that even the western media call it out. There would be many more that don’t make it onto the front pages of first world media.