So America bombed a Girls school killing 150+ in Iran?

Yes, based on the latest U.S. military investigation and official assessments, it is likely that American forces hit the girls' school in Minab, Iran.

Key evidence pointing to U.S. involvement

1. U.S. military investigators' preliminary assessment indicates American forces were likely responsible for the strike that killed scores (Iranian reports: 150–175, mostly girls aged 7–12) on March 1, 2026, during the first day of U.S.-Israeli operations against Iran.
2. The school was next to an IRGC-linked naval facility/base, which U.S. forces were targeting; satellite imagery and munitions analysis show precision-guided air-delivered explosives hit both simultaneously or near-simultaneously.
3. Officials briefed Congress that the U.S. was targeting the area; Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth confirmed an ongoing probe but denied intentional civilian targeting.

Caveats and status

1. The assessment is preliminary and not final; investigators have not ruled out new evidence implicating another party (e.g., Israel or misattribution).
2. No admission of deliberate school targeting—described as probable collateral damage; the UN has called for full investigation as a potential humanitarian law violation.

--------------------

This is something that DumbMike and the others from the Trumpanzee species do not understand. Iran is one of the worst countries in the world, but acting like them - or worse is no better.

Dim cunt

Let us get the factual repoprt and ot what the fake media claimed happened, If you can conform that the allegef report is ri g ht I wil apologize/

But then you are a brainwashed dim thinking enhancement by the fake media,

https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000010750321/how-we-analyzed-the-strike-on-the-iranian-school.html

Malachy Browne of our Visual Investigations team describes what satellite imagery and other evidence tell us about who might be responsible for an airstrike on an elementary school in southern Iran. The strike killed at least 175 people, according to health officials and Iranian state media.

By Malachy Browne, Aaron Boxerman, Coleman Lowndes and Estelle Caswell

March 6, 2026

Dirty-ouMaaik ... wash your mouth out ... you're a vuil-uil.

Shame on you.

1. No admission of deliberate school targeting—described as probable collateral damage; the UN has called for full investigation as a potential humanitarian law violation.

These things are very sad but they happen in war. When children are involved one’s heart melts. Hegseth has already addressed this and said there will be a full investigation of why it happened.

In the meantime Iran is lobbying rockets into cities actually trying to hit civilians and the UN remains silent.

These things are very sad but they happen in war. When children are involved one’s heart melts. Hegseth has already addressed this and said there will be a full investigation of why it happened.

Given past investigations by the US into similar situations have generally resulted in very few people being held to account, most of the world wouldn't have much faith in such an investigation, even less so with the current administration.

In the meantime Iran is lobbying rockets into cities actually trying to hit civilians and the UN remains silent.

No the UN has condemned jointly condemned both sides and urged de-escalation.

https://unric.org/en/un-reaction-following-the-attacks-on-iran-and-retaliatory-strikes/

“International law and international humanitarian law must always be respected,” the Secretary-General said, condemning the military strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran as well as the subsequent attacks by Iran.

Wonderful wording - but did the UN do anyhing to upheld human rights i n dictatorial countries and do they do anything about international terrorism sponsired by Iran? Did t hey do anything when covol warss are sponspored snd cuse massive loss of life?

If the UN [rove they have acted to enhance Human Rights in the world and act to stop wars and civil wars, They have done nothing in the last 80 years to make the world a mire s table and peaceful place then one can respect them - but to date they have been the worst mone spebndig force in the world,

The Nobel Peace prizes went in the main to people who acually object to human rights abuses - the UN protect the abusers/

. ,

Mozart

Hall Of Famer

48,796 posts

Mar 07, 2026, 21:02

These things are very sad, but they happen in war. When children are involved, one’s heart melts.

---

Yes, as if Americans are very sad about this...

The consumers are just worried about the cost of gas and McDonald's. Burger King or the stock market.

When Bush struck back after 9/11, America (and its allies) had the moral high ground.

However, when Bush attacked Iraq, the moral high ground was lost.

Attacking Iran without any form of a plan is not something that allies can support. It is also illegal.

Now, Trump's team are blowing up schools. It may not have been done on purpose, but if they had never attacked Iran, this would not have happened in the first place.

Iran has been one of the worst countries for a while, but there has to be some line in the sand- otherwise America are just Hamas, Hezbollahs, etc.

What is the plan - just kill as many Iranians as possible? Hopefully, that prevents Iran from building long-range weapons or nuclear weapons in the future.

Given past investigations by the US into similar situations have generally resulted in very few people being held to account, most of the world wouldn't have much faith in such an investigation, even less so with the current administration.

Well I wouldn’ t be casting stones from inside your glass house.

This war probably gives Trump another 3 weeks of deflection. He'll probably follow up with a takeover of Cuba & an attack on Mexican drug cartels.

What is the plan - just kill as many Iranians as possible? Hopefully, that prevents Iran from building long-range weapons or nuclear weapons in the future.

There is no plan. Trump is shaking the tree and seeing what falls out of the branches

Did you notice the Trump administration isn't stating a clear goal of what they are trying to achieve, because if they don't state a goal then no matter how the war ends they can claim victory and deny failure.

If the Iranian regime survives Trump just claim victory by saying they have degraded Iran's ability to attack outside it's borders. If the regime is toppled by the Iranian people they will say that was the intention all along, and if Iran descends into civil war or they drag their neighbour into a war, the US will say well geez that's unfortunate but we had to strike them to deal with the danger they posed to us and the region.

Well I wouldn’ t be casting stones from inside your glass house.

Oh surprise a deflection.

It is clear why America is not part of the global court International Criminal Court (ICC).

At this rate, Trump will have committed as many war crimes as Putin before the end of term.

In an ideal world, they would be they would be cell mates

America, we have No Kings.

We are showing up together again on March 28.

When our families are under attack and costs are pushing people to the brink, silence is not an option. We will defend ourselves and our communities against this administration’s unjust and cruel acts of violence. America does not belong to strongmen, greedy billionaires, or those who rule through fear. It belongs to us, the people.

me too

The above dirivel is unbeleivable, The Ayatollah regime killed more people during their reign and that was never a problem for site members, Kiling is a love affair of those - they encourage the war in Ukraine to contnue in which millios fled from the country and almost as many people were klled, Any effort to stop thay war was accompanied by howles of hope it would continue and peace effort must be stopped.

How many people died as a result of the present Iran attacks, Probably less than 1% of the peope killed in Ukraine and the people murdered by the Aatollah Regime in Iran. That is horrible just to support the war in Ukraine all out and creep on their knees before the Ayatollah regime in Iran.

Sick people on this site,

Oom reading your posts , esp the 2.35AM variety can be a challenge, up there with wordle

g

"Now, Trump's team are blowing up schools. It may not have been done on purpose, but if they had never attacked Iran, this would not have happened in the first place."

If people didn't drive cars there would be millions less deaths per year.

Visser...

Hahah but "diplomacy"

Clowns

Where do you find the braindead shit you publish on this site?

@Buttplug, if you stop shitting, you will save money on a toilet. However, then you would die - so the benefits outweigh the costs of a toilet.

Cars improve the economy and therefore protect more lives than they cost in deaths

Automatic driving will soon greatly reduce the number of car crashes, so the benefit-to-cost ratio will continue to improve.

SB

I am all for modernization and support you when iot comes to driving,

However, this is about Iran and a filthy dctatorship known to use women and children as human shields, All surrounded by a wall in a as if im a war their could be a minor valuation that woul effect the school or clinic, The Regime will use that a collateral damage - not lo/d of lie of children and patients,bit turning it into propaganda

Does it not bother you when you are attacking Trump and in the process defend one of the most cruel regimes in the world?

Dumbmike, there is international law - even for Iranians.

Otherwise, anyone could barge into a country as peacekeepers and use pretextual motives to take over the country. (Like your Hero Putin, who wanted to Denazify Ukraine).

Your other trigger-happy master, Trump, is responsible for the bombing of a school, which the Trumpanzee species dismisses as mere collateral damage.

Condemning this and calling for respect of international laws and norms is the correct course of action. What it means is not to be like them (Radical Muslims and Trump).

Just randomly attacking a country and bombing civilian areas through incompetence or intentionally is not morally acceptable.

Are you too stupid to understand that it does not mean supporting Islam and its leaders? (A rhetorical question).

If Iran had bombed a school within a NATO country or ally, the counterattack would be swift. Any Iranian involved in that attack would be destroyed. However, that is a defensive action with a moral highground.

Trump and his religious supporters still think like the Muslims -as if this were the Crusades.

"Dumbmike, there is international law - even for Iranians."

Tell me, because I forgot, how many Iranian civilians were killed by the regime in Jan/Feb.

I guess there was no international law for them. The UN was probably on holiday.

Oh well, I guess international law and the UN can't help everyone or, in the case of Iranian civilians, anyone.

Indeed, just see Jonathan Pie's piece on Iran.

Religious zealots using their religion as an excuse to exercise violence on people of a different religion.

By taking sides, you're condoning this.

Religion has nothing to do with it for me.

Blowing up fkers that have spent 40 years killing innocent people, oppressing and raping women, using force to bend a society to its will and sponsoring terror...that's something I would get behind regardless of the religion of the perpetrators.

Ideally, someone would have had the diplomatic nous and/or persuasive ability to put an end to what was happening in Iran in a peaceful way. Somehow I doubt such a person or group of people exist.

So what is the solution?

I'm acquainted with high level ANC diplomat. A few weeks back I took the opportunity to probe him on the ANC's relationship with Iran. His words, and I quote "We follow a policy of non intervention."

I then asked him what he would do if he heard his neighbour beating the living hell out of his wife? I told him I would not be able to resist intervening.

He said that would be a mistake and could result in me being injured. He said the correct thing to do is call the cops.

I asked him who the Iranian people should call.

He didn't like that.

So Buttplug, you go across to your neighbour's house and punch the wife beater.

He falls and hits his head on the TV. He goes to the hospital, and then sues you for assault and breaking into his house.

To your dismay, his wife backs him up and supports her husband. You end up having to pay the wife beater and his wife, or go to jail.

Then the next week, your other neighbour is also a wife-beater. You hear screams. Again, you force your way into the house and punch him. However, this wife-beater is much stronger. You lose the fight and end up in the hospital. You take him to court for assault, but you lose because you entered the house illegally.

His wife says you threw the first punch, and her husband was only defending himself (and her).

You do not win the court case.

The moral of the story is that in the Middle East, when two sides fight, it is not usually a good side versus a bad side. I would rather just stay out of their affairs and let them be. Many are religious savages who would not appreciate the help. (even if it was real, and not just for oil and a distraction to Epstein).

The fable:

A scorpion needs to cross a river but can't swim, so it asks a fox for a ride on its back. The fox refuses at first, fearing a sting that would drown them both mid-river. The scorpion logically argues it wouldn't sting because that would doom itself too, convincing the fox to agree. Halfway across, the scorpion stings anyway. As they sink, the dying fox asks why, and the scorpion replies, "It's my nature—I couldn't help it.

Imagine if the Yanks and Poms had said Hitler was the continent's problem.

"You do not win the court case

Could you really see a woman being beaten up and do nothing because your sense of self preservation overrides your natural instinct to do something?

If so, then we're not cut from the same cloth.

Plum, you’re naive thinking Donald Trump is a savior. If your intervention only targets the bad husband, that’s fine.

But now his children get hurt too because they don’t understand what’s going on. Even the wife might interfere and say, “It’s none of your business.”

So it’s more complicated than being a prince or savior. Targeting only the people causing harm is the only way, but you need backup to ensure none of the innocents get involved.

Analogy for Trump: He’s the neighbor stepping in to save a wife, but the only reason he’s stepping in is because he wants to fuck the wife.

That’s why he acts like he’s saving people, but he ALWAYS has a hidden agenda. Venezuela was about oil and power, under the false premise of saving the people. Same with Iran.

That’s why he’s not a true savior, but a dictator with a small orange dick :)

Overall: Oppressive regimes are wrong. But bombing civilians while claiming to save people is also wrong.

Real intervention should go after the real scoundrels only, with precision, warnings, and minimal risk to innocent people.

Buttplug, so you want to fly over to Iran and help protect the 30,000 protest victims? Are you going to single-handedly defeat the perpetrators with your bare hands?

A little lesson on history. America did not willingly enter World War II. Japan declared war on America by attacking Pearl Harbour. America declared war on Japan after it attacked Pearl Harbour.

Germany declared war on America, which brought the US into World War II when it joined the Allied side. (Hitler's opposition).

Until then, America's only involvement was financial aid. These loans were paid back with interest.

America claimed to win World War II, but that is nonsense. Hitler lost the war due to poor tactics- by overextending, trying toattack Russia during winter - by going through the USSR buffer zone, like Ukraine. Russia applied their usual run-and-hide scorched-earth tactics.

The USSR had more impact on defeating Germany than the other countries. The USSR were responsiible for over 80% of the deaths of the Nazi army.

Pearl Harbour Trigger

Japan attacked Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941, prompting President Franklin D. Roosevelt to request a declaration of war against Japan, which Congress approved the next day in his "Day of Infamy" address. This followed nearly two years of U.S. neutrality after the UK's entry in 1939.

Full Involvement

Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941, leading to reciprocal U.S. declarations and full commitment to both Pacific and European theaters

Declaration Sequence

On December 8, 1941, Congress approved President Roosevelt's request to declare war solely on Japan following the December 7 attack, with votes of 82-0 in the Senate and 388-1 in the House. Germany and Italy, bound by the Tripartite Pact, then declared war on the US on December 11, 1941, prompting immediate reciprocal US declarations against them that same day (88-0 Senate for Germany, 393-0 House; 90-0 Senate for Italy, 399-0 House).

Pre-War Support

Prior to these events, the US remained neutral but aided the Allies through Lend-Lease supplies starting in 1941, without direct combat involvement in Europe. This sequence shifted America from isolationism to full global engagement.

Weak and disingenuous arguments boys.

Do better.

M

Not sure if you know what altruism is.

If not, read up about it.

And then we can have a philosophical debate about whether it is possible or not.

Yes, it's possible putting other people's needs before your own. I've done it many times myself.

So how does that apply to Donald Trump and Israel?? If you’re saying they do that, you’re more naive than I ever thought.

You need to stop with the insults, M.

If you believe that you have fully contemplated altruism as a concept, lined up a logical and irrefutable argument for its actual existence, and can declare it so from an unassailable position, then you're the naive one here.

The larger question, which were YOU not so naive you may have twigged, is that truly altruistic behaviour is not conclusively proven and, that being the case, should one judge the outcome of a deed by the benefit to the actor or the ultimate effect of the deed?

If we assume that no "good deed" should be carried out if the person doing it derives some benefit from it, then you remove the majority of good deeds.

Interesting that you chose to call me naive.

is that truly altruistic behaviour is not conclusively proven

The truer than true liberal absence of argument... Bringing true truth since 1776....

Refuting any claim about the altruism requires to penetrate the consciousness and subconsciousness of a the person claiming to be altruistic. That is a high part of subjectivity in it.

It is very funny because when stuff leans toward objectivity, liberals claims it is all subjective and when subjectivity is involved, liberals give a true than true truth absence of argument.

So what’s the plan…we leave Iran to develop nukes, nuclear delivery systems,ramp up other offensive missiles, promote terrorism in the ME, kill the opposition when there are elections.

What do we do….nothing? Talk nicely to them? Continue the 45 year long negotiation, refuse to buy Iranian oil knowing China will buy it all anyway?

The do nothing solution contrasts with the Theme Park’s desire to take on Russia, a country which has the nukes Iran would like to have and more.

From all the US critics on this string Shark, Anger, Blob…M. We get it, you are critical….what do we do about Iran and Russia. Lay it out for us. And puleeeze no bs, tell us what the obvious answers are.

The celebration videos... Useful only when it matches liberals' mindsets. Is there any event people have not celebrated?

OK, you’re making it all abstract. In plain terms, altruism just means being unselfish...doing good without expecting anything in return.

You can argue about “pure” altruism all you want, but people do act unselfishly, and that’s enough. So if you’re saying it doesn’t exist, show me proof.

And suggesting that you’re naive for holding Donald Trump in such high regard is not meant as an insult, but more as a piece of good advice:)

The Ayatollah regime killed mopre eople during their reign and that was never a problem for site members,

For obvious reasons. Liberalism has it that an entity called WeThePeople exists and is sovereign. It transfers its power through consent to execution of the exercise of power to servants. It means that WeThePeople is responsible and can be held accountable when a servant executes a line of action.

When a police officer kills, they kill on behalf of WeThePeople. When a soldier kills, they kill on the behalf of WeThePeople. When a politician triggers a war, the war is triggered on the behalf of WeThePeople.

Liberals who consent to the policies of their government are responsible and may be held accountable for the said policies. Bin Laden reminded this liberal core tenet. Because WeThePeople is a legitimate target.

Now another funny thing: when a tyrant, an autocrat declares a war, they do not do it on the behalf of their own people, which has no responsibility and can not be held accountable for it. But liberals kill a lot of people who lived under tyranny like in Iraq, Libya or whatever. So liberals' absence of justification is that those people who lived under a tyranny are guilty of not overthrowing the tyranny and pay the price for it.

Very funny.