The attackers’ ability to spare newly established adjacent facilities (such as the Martyr Absalan clinic) and their glaring failure to avoid an elementary school operating at full capacity and packed with 170 girls leaves us with two scenarios, both unequivocally condemnatory: Either US and Israeli forces relied, in striking the vicinity of the Asif Brigade, on a very old, outdated intelligence target bank (dating to before 2013), which would constitute grave negligence and reckless disregard for civilian lives; or the strike was carried out deliberately and with prior knowledge to inflict maximum societal shock and undermine popular support for Iran’s military establishment.
Yeah, sorry. If you hadn’t responded yet I was going to add an edit. Not my best work.
I think Pete Hegseth is a reasonably intelligent person, and any reasonably intelligent person who spends time talking to Western military experts is going to learn something. The whole “we should have hit them harder in 'nam” thing is for people who don’t know an AFV from a tank and think Rambo is a documentary. If you talk to people who are right wing but actually learned on the subject you get different narratives from that.
It’s possible he believes some of what he’s selling. He knows for sure he started the war, contrary to the statement, because he did that. If he wanted to rack up as many casualties as possible, he has better ways to do that, so most likely some degree of targetedness is intended. Is he very worried about legality, or civilian casualties beyond the PR effect? Maybe not.
No, it’s not. If you’re not the kind of person who prefers North Korea over France I apologise for cutting you off. It’s just there’s so many people like that on here, and I don’t love spending time on it.
I think sh.itjust.works blocks the big “anti-imperialist” instances, but you’ve been around for three years, so you would definitely be aware of it at the very least.
I mean, I’m here so my politics are predictably best described as “complicated”, but you can elevator pitch it as “human rights; morality and utility are different; context is everything”. France does more to improve the human condition than north Korea, so I much prefer France, although some of their actions are also not great.
I do know the type you’re talking about. Quite frustrating indeed.
Most of the point of my comments was purely to say that that type of hawkish mindset exists, initially for the purpose of clarifying things for the original comments question.
Beyond that, I just don’t feel I have reason to doubt his words on the subject, including beyond the speech.
They’re consistent with his actions, not particularly uncommon, and stubborn in the face of reason since it views the reasonable opinion as specifically weak.
I can’t speak for the veracity of the claim that it was intentional itself, since I don’t have the information.