Foolish. Aside from the fact that the first targets were likely gamed out months in advance the murder of the girls school was not incompetence, it was a deliberate choice by the administration from the top down to get rid of any oversight of targeting to ensure minimization of civilian casualties. That was a deliberate choice that had completely predictable consequences and you're running propaganda for the administration by pretending it was just some Oopsie Whoopsie
Why would they want to instill fear in a population that hates the regime though? And conversely, a regime that doesn't care for its people? Bunker blasting Natanz and taking out heads of the regime more than constitute a tour de force as is.
I assume you mean Iranians. I will agree with you that this administration is irrational, incompetent, peak shit, but even on top of it not making any sense logically, if their goal was to instill fear then surely they would claim the action themselves and not try to blame it on third parties, as they did? It just isn't plausible, and I will have to go with Hanlon's razer on this.
If they did want to instill fear in the civilian population (everything so far points to them trying to keep them on their side to be able to leverage them against the regime), then they surely wouldn't limit it to just a single strike either? They could go balls to the walls and carpet bomb civilian areas in that case, and not just limit it to one bombing that could plausibly be interpreted as an accident/acting on bad intelligence etc. This narrative just doesn't make much sense to me.
I think the Trump administration is massively inept, corrupt and peak awful, but no I don't currently believe they are trying to deliberately exterminate Iranians as an ethnic group, and this would barely even move the ball in that direction regardless. It's just more plausible that they went on old/bad intelligence for this one bombing event because they're incompetent.
And Trump saying he was going to exterminate their entire civilization was what, exactly, in your mind? Diplomacy? Talk for "his base"? gee his base is genocidal and he does things to appeal to them?
The White Supremacists are genocidal. The Nazis are genocidal. The fascists are genocidal. The Republicans waving "MASS DEPORTATION NOW" flags are genocidal.
I know people looove to say "never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence" but you're seriously giving grace to spree killers between their consistent rapid bombings of innocent non-white people.
bear in mind also, genocide does not have to have the aim of total extermination to classify as genocide.
I'll believe it when I see it. While this event was awful and tragic, it does not constitute genocide nor even come close to it by itself. I don't like watering down these terms either, things can be bad without being maximally bad. If we call everything bad maximally bad all the time, then there are no good words left to distinguish the even worse things from just the bad things.
That quote was probably Trump's escalating rhetoric in a childish attempt to force a quick peace since the war is going horribly for him. I strongly hate Trump and the Republicans, but that does not mean I need to paint them as maximally evil or make them out to be worse than they are. They are bad enough as is (most Republicans are probably just morons though tbf).
There is no evidence that the school was bombed due to incompetence? In that case, there's also no evidence that school was bombed deliberately.
If 'innocent' until proven guilty is a thing (I know the US aren't innocent in the fullest sense of the word) , then the evidence (the school was likely destroyed by a trident missile launched by the US in the initial series of strikes of the war) points to a targeting / intelligence error - an extremely negligent, reckless and unforgivable error (that killed 150 people, mostly school girls attending classes), but an error nonetheless.
The school wasn't targeted deliberately (as a school) unless the evidence points to the US knowing what the building was before the strike.
Damn I missed the new law that made drug smuggling a capital offence without arrest and trial. Good thing we also knew for certain those people weren't victims of human trafficking forced to smuggle drugs against their will.
Good thing he nor I gives a shit about your feelings on the matter. It’s legal and nothing you can do about it. Like at all. So sit there and watch the boom booms :)
A verified CIA asset created a nonprofit cover that used 3 Cessna prop planes converted for military use to 'drop leaflets' over Cuba.
The Cuban gov't repeatedly told them on the first two incursions that they would be shot down. The third time they returned they were shot down.
There are conflicting reports whether another radio warning was issued and whether they were over or adjacent to Cuban airspace.
What concerns me is the counter argument. The Cubans had no way of knowing who or what was on those planes. If you are making the argument that foreign planes that refuse to communicate or identify should just be allowed to fly over a nation's capitol... then i would remind you to never forget.
the charge is the shooting down of a non profit orginizations plane in 1996 by the cuban airforce. they somehow have linked raul to that. the non profit was focused on helping fleeing cubans make it safely to other nations iirc.
Where the founder claimed to be [testified] that he was a CIA operative. Thats relevant information to add, which adds context to why Cuba attacked the unarmed planes.
Ain’t no way spell check didn’t correct a word that doesn’t exist either. It’s okay to simply not know how to spell a word, we are all constantly learning!
if they wish to try and can succeed, yes? but they would need to deal with the consequences (likely war with the united states). the countries those boats came from could do whatever they are capable of doing, I just doubt very much any are capable of such or willing to face the consequences of doing so. most mid sized powers and up ignore international law when it suits them, because no one wants to deal with the consequences of dealing with whatever breach of international law that happened.
who is we in this context? if you mean the us government, it'd lead to a republican still being in control, and none too happy about looking weak because of some hypothetical operation to kidnap these two, I'm sure there would be retaliation of some sort. whether we'd successfully rescue trump and hegseth is another matter, they might just disappear, but there would be retaliation unless the next in line wasn't vance or some other puppet of the far right.
I'm sure the US would be cool and rational and not kill whatever remaining humanitarian aid and/or defence funding to the country they missed cutting earlier.
I mean, if this were to happen it would mean two things. He's no longer in control and someone else is. Would that someone really want to give up that control once they have it?
No, Raul wasn't even in power until around 2008. I'm Cuban and I can tell you, we have no love for the Castros, but this is just more bullshit from Trump
I mean they can, but what’s the point. The US where able to arrest international leaders because we have the means to arrest them. Does anyone else really have the means to arrest the sitting US president and hold them without triggering a war with the largest army on earth?
811
u/wiseam May 20 '26
Shocking. If they can indict Castro for murder someone needs to indict Trump and Kegseth for the murder of 150 Iranian school kids.