The BBC article in no shape, way, or form supports your statement that the school was "triple tapped". The article was written by an Iranian, but let's just fo

The BBC article in no shape, way, or form supports your statement that the school was "triple tapped". The article was written by an Iranian, but let's just for a moment assume that they're not monumentally biased and instead let's look at the pictures and the text. The picture in the BBC article clearly shows one impact point in the middle of the school building, and also one each in the surrounding IRGC buildings. What "eyewitnesses" would have observed from some distance away would have been a series of explosions. Six to eight bombs, all dropped in rapid succession, likely from two to four planes. Double-tapping (or triple tapping) involves a long delay between the initial hit and the follow-up hit. The idea being to also kill the emergency services personel that turn up... half an hour later. The article carefully misquotes the locals who witnessed a series of explosions to suggest that this was a series of attacks on the school itself, but fails to scrape together the evidence to sell this narrative: "suggesting it was hit more than once" -- but not proving. Actually, not showing that at all, since the picture clearly shows one hit on the building! "around the Shajareh Tayebeh primary school" -- but not in the school. "the area was "struck by multiple" -- the area around the school is an IRGC base, not "more school". "Two damaged buildings" -- and then they admit one is the IRGC building leaving... one school building that was hit, once. "difficult to independently verify" -- here the BBC admits to repeating IRGC propaganda without even bother to check the picture they put in their own article that obviously contradicts their biased narrative. "speculation about what the intended target" -- what speculation? It was the IRGC base! It was a former IRGC building! Nobody in their right mind would "speculate" about this. This is a brazen lie. "may have been used" "who may have been operating" etc... I could keep on going, but why bother? This BBC article is total garbage, packed with deceptive language, weasel words, and "just asking questions". The real, factually true heinous act here is the sloppiness of the US administration in keeping up with the changing status of IRGC targets. They got lazy, killed a 168 students and teachers, which is horrific. We can blame them for their hubris. We can blame them for starting the war in the first place. We can lay the blame at their feet for any number of things. But please don't repeat a made-up story of unbelievable, cartoonish evil. It's obvious that the US administration didn't set out to on-purpose kill school children! It's obvious that they didn't "double tap" the school building! It's obvious that they thought that they were hitting an IRGC building and it turned out not to be so. They made a mistake, but a mistake surrounded by deliberate war. Be angry at them starting this unnecessary war, which they did on purpose.