3/13/2026 at 8:34:23 PM
by johnbarron
3/14/2026 at 5:41:04 AM
They did a double tap strike on a girls school.i.e. they blew up a school with kids in it, then when people went in to try and rescue the survivors they struck the school again to kill the rescuers.
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2026/3/12/who-bombed-the-...
Our leadership obviously does not care at all about civilian lives.
by Dig1t
3/14/2026 at 12:09:45 PM
> The death toll from the attack on an elementary school in Minab climbed past 165, most of them under age 12, with nearly 100 others wounded, according to Iranian health officials.Aside from the obvious horrifyng aspect of this, that's also a lot of people who are going to remember this sorely. Pretty sure none of this is going to be beneficial to the future of anyone involved, on both sides.
C'mon, only 2 years and 9.5 months to go...
by dashzebra
3/14/2026 at 2:06:01 AM
The DoD has vocally stated their intent to maximize death. They have explicit stated their disgust for the rules of engagement.by wobblyasp
3/14/2026 at 10:04:57 AM
This sort of moral decline bites you in the back years later.The same is going on in Israel - covering up of war crimes, covering of sexual and other abuse of prisoners
by srean
3/14/2026 at 12:33:19 PM
They don't even try to cover it anymore.by BenGosub
3/14/2026 at 1:16:29 PM
US at least took some level of accountability, however much watered down, for Abu Graib.Maybe this is a different US now.
by srean
3/14/2026 at 2:48:25 AM
>The DoD has vocally stated their intent to maximize death.Source?
by gruez
3/14/2026 at 5:16:31 AM
NY Times article on the rhetoric: https://archive.ph/In52aby wavemode
3/14/2026 at 2:39:14 PM
Based on a quick skim it looks like he's talking about combatant deaths? I suppose it's technically supports the claim of "maximize death", but in the broader context of civilian casualties it's a bit misleading. Also, isnt the whole point of a military to kill enemy combatants? It might not be an explicit objective, and there are limits to what kinds of killings are allowed, but at the same time I don't think there's any military trying to minimize deaths either, eg. by using less lethal weapons.by gruez
3/14/2026 at 3:42:42 PM
The point of a military is to achieve political goals, not specifically to kill. Notice all the rules around PoWs and how the most common role militaries play is deterrence.by AlotOfReading
3/14/2026 at 4:59:31 PM
>The point of a military is to achieve political goals, not specifically to kill.The point of a company is to deliver shareholder value, but if boeing says the purpose of the company to sell planes, nobody is going to object.
>Notice all the rules around PoWs
I specifically acknowledged this in my prior comment
>how the most common role militaries play is deterrence.
"deterrence" goes out the window when you start a hot war.
by gruez
3/14/2026 at 3:44:50 PM
>Based on a quick skim it looks like he's talking about combatant deaths?You should have read the article more closely.
Hegseth describes the war in Iran very differently. At a news conference last week, he said it would have “no stupid rules of engagement.” In another, he said that the U.S. military would shower “death and destruction from the sky all day long.”
Today’s campaign isn’t about enduring freedom. It’s called Operation Epic Fury. “Maximum lethality, not tepid legality,” Hegseth said earlier this year. “Violent effect, not politically correct.”
by krapp
3/14/2026 at 6:00:33 AM
let us not forget they changed the name to the department of war.by toofy
3/14/2026 at 12:19:34 PM
No they didn't. Stop perpetuating this lie. Is the XO stupid? Yes. That doesn't make it ok to lie about it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_De...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-...
by tekla
3/14/2026 at 2:55:28 PM
> President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday rebranding the Department of Defense as the Department of WarWhat exactly is the lie then?
by RevEng
3/14/2026 at 3:36:12 PM
I recommend reading the title and subtitle first.Or really the article itself which also reiterates why the OP is a lie
by tekla
3/14/2026 at 7:50:40 AM
Indeed. I'm curious how long before DHS becomes the Department of Surveillance?by snthpy
3/14/2026 at 12:11:45 PM
About -2 years agoby bitfilped
3/16/2026 at 11:01:04 AM
Yeah, but I'm wondering when they'll officially change the name. lolby snthpy
3/14/2026 at 11:57:35 AM
Nobody could’ve predicted that putting an abusive alcoholic in charge of the DoD would lead to this. Oh wait, plenty of people predicted this.There are no leaders in the current administration, only self-absorbed sycophants.
by quickthrowman
3/14/2026 at 3:19:42 AM
>They have explicit stated their disgust for the rules of engagement.Which ones? The ones from the GWOT? Those rules of "engagement"?
by remarkEon
3/14/2026 at 1:34:51 PM
Dunno. You'll have to ask him.https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4418...
by wobblyasp
3/14/2026 at 12:18:32 AM
[dead]by glass1122