The U.S. and Israel attack Iran | Peace deal finally on?

I don't see how it works for both. It's a precision strike, the key being precision. Either it was a complete miss where for some reason the strike hit anything but its intended target, or it hit its intended target and questions needs to be asked about why the feck the intended target was a school and why this wasn't easily discovered when checking targets. Especially since we're talking about a coordinated pre-planned strike and not an urgent response to a developing situation.

Meanwhile, speculations about the state of a leader is a lot more complicated because there's obvious reasons not to fully disclose much during a situation where his life is at risk. We're talking about a country that rigged fecking pagers with explosives and detonated them without much care about locations and collateral damage.

Look I'm not saying definitively that the girls school was the target. Guess we will never know. But at the same time there is too much that doesnt make sense. Like the double tap.

Now that school, as I understand, had girls whose parents are military or science related. Is that a coincidence?

Now in the past in there have been "accidental precision" strikes on kids related to the "enemy". Off the top of my head Anwar Al Awlakis son. And yeah there are "circumstances" around that killing too. But the response ultimately was "ah well".
 
Turns out the Jim Cramer of geopolitics is actually Jim Cramer



I see people brag about the US being by far the largest oil producers which in their mind means that they would benefit from an increase in price, the US is also the largest consumer. A price increase isn't good for americans and Arab countries(and Russia) would make far more money since they consume significantly less than they export.
 
Im going to do something sloppy and ask Chatgpt to list all the times we got close to using nukes. since 1945 through intention, confusion, human and technical fallibility. Its to drive home the point that nuclear profilieration increases the chance of the human epic feck up that will cause a nuclear winter.

If a copy/paste from ai isn't allowed I'll delete my post.

Here is a chronological overview of the most serious nuclear near-misses after 1945, where nuclear weapons were seriously considered, prepared for use, or almost launched. I’ll focus on the major historically recognized crises rather than minor alerts.




1. The Berlin Blockade Crisis (1948–1949)​


Entities: Berlin Blockade
  • The Soviet Union blockaded West Berlin to force the Western Allies out.
  • The United States secretly deployed nuclear-capable B-29 bombers to the UK.
  • At the time the U.S. had very few atomic bombs, but their deployment signaled readiness.
  • The crisis ended with the Berlin Airlift rather than escalation.

Why it mattered:
This was the first nuclear signaling crisis of the Cold War.


2. The Korean War Escalation Debate (1950–1953)​


Entities: Korean War | Douglas MacArthur | Harry S. Truman
  • General MacArthur proposed using 30–50 atomic bombs against China and North Korea.
  • Targets included Chinese supply bases and a radioactive “belt” across Korea.
  • President Truman rejected the proposal and later removed MacArthur from command.

Why it mattered:
This was the closest the U.S. came to deliberately using nuclear weapons in war after 1945.

3. Taiwan Strait Crisis (1954–1955)​


Entities: First Taiwan Strait Crisis | Dwight D. Eisenhower


  • China shelled islands controlled by Taiwan.
  • The U.S. openly discussed using nuclear weapons against Chinese military targets.
  • Eisenhower administration officials indicated nukes were considered “like any other weapon.”

Why it mattered:
Nuclear use was seriously integrated into war planning, not just deterrence.

4. The Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (1958)​


Entities: Second Taiwan Strait Crisis


  • China again bombarded Quemoy and Matsu islands.
  • The U.S. prepared nuclear strikes against mainland China if an invasion occurred.
  • Nuclear-armed aircraft were moved into the region.

5. The Berlin Crisis (1961)​


Entities: Berlin Crisis of 1961 | Construction of the Berlin Wall


  • Massive confrontation between U.S. and Soviet tanks at Checkpoint Charlie.
  • Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact raised nuclear readiness.
  • Strategic nuclear forces were placed on heightened alert.

The Most Dangerous Moment​

6. The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)​


Entities: Cuban Missile Crisis | John F. Kennedy | Nikita Khrushchev


Often considered the closest humanity has come to nuclear war.


Key events:


  • The Soviet Union secretly deployed nuclear missiles to Cuba.
  • The U.S. imposed a naval blockade.
  • Nuclear forces on both sides went to DEFCON 2, one step from war.

Three separate near-launch incidents occurred:


  1. Soviet submarine B-59almost launched a nuclear torpedo after being depth-charged by U.S. ships.
    • Launch required three officers’ agreement.
    • Vasily Arkhipov refused, preventing launch.
  2. U.S. Strategic Air Command bombers were fully armed and airborne.
  3. A U.S. U-2 was accidentally shot down over Cuba.

The Dangerous Computer and False Alarm Era​


7. NORAD False Alarm (1960)​


Entities: North American Aerospace Defense Command


  • Radar mistakenly showed a massive Soviet missile attack.
  • The cause turned out to be the moon rising over Norway.

8. The 1979 NORAD Computer Error​


Entities: NORAD


  • A training simulation tape accidentally entered the real warning system.
  • It showed thousands of Soviet missiles inbound.
  • U.S. nuclear forces scrambled before the mistake was discovered.

9. The Petrov Incident (1983)​


Entities: Stanislav Petrov


One of the most famous near disasters.


  • Soviet satellite warning systems detected five incoming U.S. ICBMs.
  • Petrov judged the signal likely false.
  • He refused to report it as a real attack, which would have triggered retaliation.

It turned out to be sunlight reflecting off clouds.

10. Able Archer Crisis (1983)​


Entities: Able Archer 83 NATO exercise | NATO


  • NATO conducted a command-post exercise simulating nuclear war.
  • The Soviet Union believed it might be cover for a real first strike.
  • Soviet nuclear forces were quietly put on high alert.

Historians now think this was one of the closest calls of the Cold War.

11. Norwegian Rocket Incident (1995)​


Entities: Norwegian rocket incident | Boris Yeltsin


  • Russia detected a scientific rocket launched from Norway.
  • Radar briefly interpreted it as a U.S. submarine-launched missile.
  • Russia activated its nuclear briefcase for the first time ever.

After several minutes they realized it was harmless.

Other Modern Near-Miss Risks​


While less acute than Cold War crises:


  • Kargil War (1999) between India and Pakistan
  • India–Pakistan standoff 2001–2002
  • North Korean nuclear crisis (various years)

These involved nuclear-armed states in direct military confrontation.

Summary of the Most Dangerous Moments​


Historians usually rank these as the closest calls:


  1. Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)
  2. Able Archer 83 (1983)
  3. Petrov Incident (1983)
  4. Norwegian Rocket Incident (1995)

In several cases, one individual decision prevented nuclear war.
There are also things like the Broken Arrow incident, just fumbling the bombs: https://thartribune.com/the-time-the-u-s-dropped-a-nuclear-bomb-on-an-american-backyard-by-accident/
 
Trump using all of his knowledge and experience to calm people about rising oil prices…

“It’s going to come down more than we, than anybody understands”.

Phew, I was worried for a minute. Surprised he didn’t say “it’s going to be a great drop in price… some are saying it could be the greatest oil price drop ever”.
He's probably going to reduce the price 500, 800, 1500 percent, like he did with prescription drug prices.
 
Seven outraged replies because I said the US wouldn’t deliberately kill dozens of innocent children for no reason. Jesus Christ.
This thread surprises in new ways every fecking day. It's like someone needs to open a window and let in some air because there's been a slow carbon monoxide leak.

The Trump-Hegseth axis does not want to accept responsibility for blowing up the school because (to them) apologizing is weakness, and Trump has literally never apologized to anyone. When asked after he lost the 2020 election if there was anything he would have done differently or in essence admit he got wrong, he said no, there's nothing. Incompetence and being stupid motherfeckers eager to blow shit up is not equivalent to the US intentionally killing dozens of kids, and anyone who can't see the difference needs to go touch grass.
 
I'm not sure it makes anyone pro-genocide, but we should all be utterly horrified and universally opposed to creating situations where this becomes possible. This is a nebulous war at best, which makes these killings even more revolting. It's not as though the deaths can be justified as collateral damage in pursuit of some greater good. Because of that, anything that looks like an attempt to mitigate or shrug it off won’t be received well, and it shouldn’t be. Emphasising that it wasn’t done on purpose doesn’t sit well when the result is dead children. Especially when nobody is saying they did do it on puprpose. The fact is they did it. Again.
Good post
 
The typically neutral, non confrontational Omanis smell a rat. And it's hard to disagree with their analysis

 
I will admit to having been slightly radicalised in my language by the reactions my posts have been met with, and I am honestly a little bit shaken to my core at having just been accused of being a white supremacist by @Mogget (with everyone seeming to be okay with that) for suggesting the killing of dozens of innocent children was a(n unforgivable) mistake rather than on purpose. I will emphasise that I did not call you an Iran cheerleader and I think the poster I used it about has written posts that make said label more justified … but you are right in that it’s childish and derails the debate and I regret using it.

All good. It's just that you come across as quite patronizing on subjects that really are not as black and white as you want them to be. But I have been more often than not someone who gets overly emotional so I understand where you are coming from (just look at the clusterfeck of my posts in the football thread). Also I don't necessarily disagree with many of your sentiments in this thread
 
This thread surprises in new ways every fecking day. It's like someone needs to open a window and let in some air because there's been a slow carbon monoxide leak.

The Trump-Hegseth axis does not want to accept responsibility for blowing up the school because (to them) apologizing is weakness, and Trump has literally never apologized to anyone.

That's not strictly true. I think it was a day or two just before he was first elected he came out and apologised for the 'Grab em by the pussy, you can do anything' comments' from the Access Hollywood tape.

He also backtracked a little recently over his comments about British Forces not being on the frontline in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I do agree with what you meant though, and definitely agree in this instance your commenting on.

As I said in my previous post, be it bad intel or AI or outdated maps, that can all be explained and apologised for. A simple 'we are sorry, it was a terrible and tragic midtake' would be what you would expect from any sane, rational and humane leadership. However the issue I reiterate I'm struggling with is the 45 minutes between the two missile strikes.

Whatever, an apology really shouldn't be expected from Trump or Hegseth who have both used some truly reprehensible, offensive and disgustingly vile language when commenting on various aspects of the war and Iran and the Iranian people. The same as they did with Venezuelans or the supposed drug smugglers on boats, Mexicans etc.....
 
I see people brag about the US being by far the largest oil producers which in their mind means that they would benefit from an increase in price, the US is also the largest consumer. A price increase isn't good for americans and Arab countries(and Russia) would make far more money since they consume significantly less than they export.

In the immortal words of Rafa Benitez, it's all about net spend...

The U.S. is both a huge producer and a huge consumer, so what matters is the net position. Higher prices help U.S. producers and refiners, but they still act like a tax on consumers and most industries, which is why oil shocks are usually bad news for the broader economy. Historically, oil shocks are much more associated with recessions and inflation pressure than with broad national gain.

As a rule of thumb, people use somethng like $5-10 per barrel for each 1 mbd of supply disruption in a tight market, but that's useful for modest shocks.

Iran by itself is not the whole story: it produces about 3.3 mbd, but exports only about 1.1–1.5 mbd. Hormuz is the real systemic risk. And once you get anywhere near a 20 mbd transit disruption, linear rules of thumb stop being useful. You cannot say 20 mbd × $5 = $100 and think you’ve modeled it
 
All good. It's just that you come across as quite patronizing on subjects that really are not as black and white as you want them to be. But I have been more often than not someone who gets overly emotional so I understand where you are coming from (just look at the clusterfeck of my posts in the football thread). Also I don't necessarily disagree with many of your sentiments in this thread
I do not mean to be sounding patronising but the thing is, to mind, implying that someone is a white supremacist or pro-genocide (and I know you didn’t do that but that is a thing that actually happened today) because they find it more likely that the US killing more than a hundred school children for no gain was an unforgivable mistake rather than a deliberate decision is a lot more black and white than any statement I have made in this thread.
 
2020 was caused by supply problems, but in the reverse.

Everyone buying oil futures thought that oil demand would drop during the pandemic (for pretty obvious reasons). Russia and Saudi Arabia went off on a confrontation about oil production (Saudi's could afford to keep a low price, Russia couldn't), and this led to a lowered OPEC production to meet the lower demands.

As Oil traders kept on to oil, storage was soon becoming a problem (as indeed demand for Oil dropped rapidly due to covid). They were left with nowhere to put it, so they were literally paying people to take it off their hands as they couldn't physically take deliveries of their futures. That's what happened to WTC basket.


As for 2026, the gulf states have basically filled out their storage. They have oil tankers waiting to pass through the straits. People have already panic bought oil futures and there's already a selling point tip so it's crashed already. The moment the Straits of Hormuz opens, everyone realizes their panic wasn't justified and demand doesn't ramp up - the gulf states are sitting on 2 weeks of crude oil production that they cant' get rid of that easily overnight. Once the Strait opens, supply will skyrocket and all the panic buyers won't be panic buying anymore. Capacity is full, and the Gulf states need to clear that so there'll be a firesale. When countries like Bahrain said that they have stopped production, it doesn't mean literally stopping production. It's they've reduced it to what they reasonably can. Oil production is not something that can be stopped or started very easily.

It's highly unlikely, I might add, that OPEC basket does indeed reach negative but the conditions were there like Covid for something like this to happen. OPEC basket is also structured in a very weird way as its like an index, so for the overall index to fall negative would require quite a few different oil blends to do so. The alternative is they themselves buy futures through various state mechanisms and pay the cost that way.

This is wrong.

A Hormuz crisis is a supply shock, while 2020 was a demand plus storage shock. Those produce completely different price dynamics.
 
That's not strictly true. I think it was a day or two just before he was first elected he came out and apologised for the 'Grab em by the pussy, you can do anything' comments' from the Access Hollywood tape.

He also backtracked a little recently over his comments about British Forces not being on the frontline in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I do agree with what you meant though, and definitely agree in this instance your commenting on.

As I said in my previous post, be it bad intel or AI or outdated maps, that can all be explained and apologised for. A simple 'we are sorry, it was a terrible and tragic midtake' would be what you would expect from any sane, rational and humane leadership. However the issue I reiterate I'm struggling with is the 45 minutes between the two missile strikes.

Whatever, an apology really shouldn't be expected from Trump or Hegseth who have both used some truly reprehensible, offensive and disgustingly vile language when commenting on various aspects of the war and Iran and the Iranian people. The same as they did with Venezuelans or the supposed drug smugglers on boats, Mexicans etc.....
Hegseth in particular with his whole "no stupid rules of engagement" shite recently. I feel like he'll get thrown under the bus and, frankly, that'll be him getting off lightly.
 
I do not mean to be sounding patronising but the thing is, to mind, implying that someone is a white supremacist or pro-genocide (and I know you didn’t do that but that is a thing that actually happened today) because they find it more likely that the US killing a hundred school children for no gain was an unforgivable mistake rather than a deliberate decision is a lot more black and white than any statement I have made in this thread.
Well what you said was “Regardless of how bad they are, the US would not kill more than a hundred innocent children on purpose.”

Even if this was a mistake (not claiming it wasn’t) that’s quite a bullshit statement given the history of the US.
 
Well what you said was “Regardless of how bad they are, the US would not kill more than a hundred innocent children on purpose.”

Even if this was a mistake (not claiming it wasn’t) that’s quite a bullshit statement given the history of the US.
And you’re free to feel that way, but I was literally called a white supremacist for that comment. If we can’t at least agree that that is absolutely insane to accuse someone of based on that comment, then we simply live in different worlds.
 
This thread surprises in new ways every fecking day. It's like someone needs to open a window and let in some air because there's been a slow carbon monoxide leak.

The Trump-Hegseth axis does not want to accept responsibility for blowing up the school because (to them) apologizing is weakness, and Trump has literally never apologized to anyone. When asked after he lost the 2020 election if there was anything he would have done differently or in essence admit he got wrong, he said no, there's nothing. Incompetence and being stupid motherfeckers eager to blow shit up is not equivalent to the US intentionally killing dozens of kids, and anyone who can't see the difference needs to go touch grass.

Let's take your argument, in bold above, as being correct. How is the talk around the incident more surprising than the fact that 170 girls were killed and it's being treated as a "ah well mistakes happen"?

You and @Jev seem to be very angry at suggestions that there is something not right and in fact downright wrong with peoples anger at the incident.

We have just had a conflict in Gaza where allegations have been purposeful targeting of Journalists, civilians and children in great numbers. The same military is then involved in another war with another country/people and the first incident is killing 170 kids.

The reasons given range from couldn't give a feck to it was a mistake to how dare you we would never do that to I don't know about that to it was Iran. Despite evidence to the contrary over the years involving both USA and Israel.
Not just Gaza but see the embassy bombing in Belgrade, Amirayah bunker etc. Where the "outdated information" excuses were used.

Sure shit happens in war. Mistakes are made but usually there is sensible talk and comeuppance at some point.


The information we have is damning really, wouldn't you agree? Israel had so much info that they targeted individuals with pagers and precision strikes. The school, albeit once part of the base, has been separate for years. It's position is not exactly that close to existing military related complexes. More than 700 feet from such up to 900 feet.

Then there is the fact that it was a double tap strike. Which are designed to take out a place then target anyone coming to assist or rescue survivors.

Bottom line is this shouldn't have happened. It did and the responses are ridiculous as to why and how it happened.
 
You and @Jev seem to be very angry at suggestions that there is something right and in fact downright wrong with peoples anger at the incident.
Absolutely not. I have said no such thing, or anything to that effect. Do not put words in my mouth. The killing of those girls is sickening and unforgivable.
 
I do not mean to be sounding patronising but the thing is, to mind, implying that someone is a white supremacist or pro-genocide (and I know you didn’t do that but that is a thing that actually happened today) because they find it more likely that the US killing more than a hundred school children for no gain was an unforgivable mistake rather than a deliberate decision is a lot more black and white than any statement I have made in this thread.

Not a fan of such labels at all. But I am sure you would agree that your statement that the US would never do such a thing is a bit ridiculous taking their history into account and also what is currently happening in Gaza (granted by Israel but under full support of the US)
 
Not a fan of such labels at all. But I am sure you would agree that your statement that the US would never do such a thing is a bit ridiculous taking their history into account and also what is currently happening in Gaza (granted by Israel but under full support of the US)
The US (and certainly Israel) would not shy away from killing civilians, as we’ve seen countless times. It’s just that strategically it simply makes no sense to start an unpopular bombing campaign by targeting a girls school, an act which serves no military purpose (or any other purpose), and in fact only serves to make the war even more unpopular. I mean, give me one good reason why they’d do it deliberately? If it’s simply because they’re barbaric, why haven’t we seen lots of other blatant attacks on civilian targets? To me it’s just obviously more likely that they wanted to hit a target that actually made sense militarily and then messed up. That does not make it okay, it does not make it forgiveable in any way. It’s just what I think is more likely, and I said that in response to someone correcting someone else for holding the same belief. Since then, I’ve been hounded out of the thread while nobody seemed to think the guy who called me a white supremacist was out of line.

EDIT: And now I’m also a mix between Kash Patel and Piers Morgan, apparently.
 
Last edited:
Seven outraged replies because I said the US wouldn’t deliberately kill dozens of innocent children for no reason. Jesus
Just because you say its "for no reason" doesnt make it so.
As per the Israeli Lebanon/Palestine playbook, killing civilians is much easier, cheaper, and arguably more effective than targeting military sites.

Speaking of, Israel just launched a strike to the hq of the lebanese university faculty of Sciences, killing 2 civilian professors. 2 days ago, a strike killed a catholic maronite priest. Both strikes did a LOT more damage to secterian division in the country, and Shiite refugees are now being turned away from Christian areas, and more pressure is being put on the government ( a Christian MP was litteraly assaulted out of the church during the priests funeral because he didnt condem the Hezb ).

Ive refrained from answering any of your posts so far, but the amount of bias and lack of contextual understanding in every single statement you come up with generally points to either extreme ignorance, or a very clear agenda.

And this is coming from a "pro western, anti muslim Israeli agent fascist Maronites", as other arabs like to call us. Id like nothing more than to see the end of the regime and by extension the Hezb in Lebanon so globally we might wish for the same conclusion, but im honest enough to state that this is only for self preservation and educated enough to see the US and Israel are solving issues they helped create. Countries being driven by large scale industrial military complex based economy will create wars if none is found.

Oh yes, i also think the mossad has massively infiltrated Iran and its proxies and they can create a "situation requiring large scale retaliation" at will. (See Hezb launching 6 (!) tiny rockets at Israel the day Iran war started, or 1 random drone to Cyprus, pushing the UK to potentially intervene)

TLDR: something about your matter of factly way of speaking nonsense reminds me so much of a mix between Piers Morgan and Cash Patel on the JRE, no clue why
 
Absolutely not. I have said no such thing, or anything to that effect. Do not put words in my mouth. The killing of those girls is sickening and unforgivable.

Your response earlier of seven responses to your post and ending in Jesus Christ seem to suggest anger even when responses from Moses, JPRouve and chaos were anything but outraged.
 
Your response earlier of seven responses to your post and ending in Jesus Christ seem to suggest anger even when responses from Moses, JPRouve and chaos were anything but outraged.
Forgive me for being slightly agitated after being labelled both a white supremacist, pro-genocide, and now a mix between Piers Morgan and Kash Patel. I did engage in a civil debate with some of the responses, by the way, such as the one from @moses. But I am extremely angry and hurt at being accused of the things I’ve been accused of today, yes, and frankly genuinely shocked that the pile-on has just continued with no-one calling out the people who’ve called me those things.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me for being slightly agitated after being labelled both a white supremacist, pro-genocide, and now a mix between Piers Morgan and Kash Patel.

Come on now. The likes of @moses @JPRouve and @Kaos were very measured and sensible in their responses to you.

Let's not get into playing victim mode please. And I acknowledge that some things said can be frustrating and taken as personal attacks. But that's forums for you. Overall though I don't think people have been overly rude to you. Or me for that matter and I've had a few responses that have been not nice. You ignore those and get on with it
 
And you’re free to feel that way, but I was literally called a white supremacist for that comment. If we can’t at least agree that that is absolutely insane to accuse someone of based on that comment, then we simply live in different worlds.
You come across quite badly in most of the recent CE threads on these types of topics, constantly downplaying and giving benefit of doubt to one side, to the point where it seems like you have ulterior motives. I would guess this is the basis for @Mogget's post, rather than one single post of yours.
 
Today, in relation to the school bombing General Grynkewich talked about safeguards being robust and at the heart of their concerns when it comes to sparing civilians lives,, that their intelligence is updated but he said something that I believe is what happened, he said that whenever he was responsible of releasing a weapon on a target he would make an assessment on whether civilians could be harmed and if it was the case whether it was proportional to the military necessity to strike the target.

Make of that what you will.
 
Today, in relation to the school bombing General Grynkewich talked about safeguards being robust and at the heart of their concerns when it comes to sparing civilians lives,, that their intelligence is updated but he said something that I believe is what happened, he said that whenever he was responsible of releasing a weapon on a target he would make an assessment on whether civilians could be harmed and if it was the case whether it was proportional to the military necessity to strike the target.

Make of that what you will.
Lotta words to say "yep we did it, and nope we don't feel wrong about it".
 
Look I'm not saying definitively that the girls school was the target. Guess we will never know. But at the same time there is too much that doesnt make sense. Like the double tap.

Now that school, as I understand, had girls whose parents are military or science related. Is that a coincidence?

Now in the past in there have been "accidental precision" strikes on kids related to the "enemy". Off the top of my head Anwar Al Awlakis son. And yeah there are "circumstances" around that killing too. But the response ultimately was "ah well".

I mean, we already know that it was targeted. That’s pretty much the easiest thing to state.
 
I mean, we already know that it was targeted. That’s pretty much the easiest thing to state.

Yes you're right.

Listening to Rory Stewart on LBC earlier. The chat was around how precise Irans targeting has been. Suggestions that it maybe they are more capable than thought or the suggestion that it's more likely to be Russian or Chinese intel.
 
Forgive me for being slightly agitated after being labelled both a white supremacist, pro-genocide, and now a mix between Piers Morgan and Kash Patel. I did engage in a civil debate with some of the responses, by the way, such as the one from @moses. But I am extremely angry and hurt at being accused of the things I’ve been accused of today, yes, and frankly genuinely shocked that the pile-on has just continued with no-one calling out the people who’ve called me those things.
Apologies for the Cash Patel one, that's a reach. Condescending was the word i wanted so Piers Morgan came to mind

You have a "matter of factly" way you speak of life and death issues with which your knowledge seems minimal at best has a tendency of getting people to react emotionally, even people who generally agree with a lot of your points like myself.

Anyway i digress waiting for a discussion on Israel invading South Lebanon to start really seems we been put to the side over the last 2 years.
 
Like to point out that logic of, "How could an intelligence agency that tracked Khamenei to the second be so incompetent as to accidentally hit a school" isn't valid.

Mainly because they're separate orgs. The guys tracking Khamenei is state level national intelligence, most likely CIA whereas the ones deciding what targets to hit are Air Force Military Intelligence/Navy Military Intelligence. Two very different competencies and skill sets.

It's how people asked why Mossad was unable to detect 7/10, and the answer is simple. It's because it wasn't Mossad but Shin-Bet.

In any case, in this context, "On purpose" or "by-accident" blends together.

I've been involved in strike package targeting before joint with the Americans during Inherent Resolve and these things are checked, and double checked. Multiple opinions, multiple heads looking at it in isolation.

99/100 times when something is hit, they were intended to be hit. Due to the tempo of Operations, there are bound to be mistakes but this wasn't a Ground interdiction mission, this was strikes against static buildings; strategic targets. Ground interdiction missions are where accidents and mishaps happen, usually because MI planners have very little time to actually decipher what's going on, especially if a unit is calling for Air support.

So very rarely do these mishaps on strategic strikes occur.

The last two genuine mistake was probably 1991 Bunker bombings and 2003 Dora farms.
Yes, 1999 Chinese Embassy was on purpose and that's all I'm going to say on that one.

So one of two things happened here:

1) Someone at a senior level gave this target and enforced overrides on any checks. In which case, this was a clear purposeful strike.
2) Processes and procedures were completely cut during this Operation in which case heads need to roll.

So regardless of if it's 1) or 2), heads need to roll for this. 2) is technically an accident but by cutting process that stop things like this makes it no different than if it were on purpose; when you destroy the processes that stop these kind of things happening, it's basically the same as doing it on purpose.

All of the above, of course, is speaking from Standard Western military procedures.

The CIA and JSOC are way more gung-ho, trigger happy, less accountable than the rest of the Military and their collateral rates are orders of magnitude higher than normal Military operations. I have no idea how JSOC/CIA target processes work but this strike wasn't done by them.
 
Someone messaged me saying a guy left a vape in his pocket on the USS Gerald Ford, put his laundry in the laundry room and it ended up setting fire to 2 washing machines and some parts of the laundry room.

This is also a complete trust me bro, but it's kinda funny if true.

Elfbar succeeding where the IRGC could not.
 
Someone messaged me saying a guy left a vape in his pocket on the USS Gerald Ford, put his laundry in the laundry room and it ended up setting fire to 2 washing machines and some parts of the laundry room.

This is also a complete trust me bro, but it's kinda funny if true.

Elfbar succeeding where the IRGC could not.

Is the guy who wrote you on the ship?
 
Hegseth in particular with his whole "no stupid rules of engagement" shite recently. I feel like he'll get thrown under the bus and, frankly, that'll be him getting off lightly.
I predict it ends either in a bunker with him whispering ich liebe dich, mein Führer as the shot rings out, or starring in a Nuremberg-like reckoning wherein he gets to join his heroes like Göring.