The Bombing of the Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls School in Minab, Iran

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

So to assume anything, especially "the administration is covering it up" only days after the incident is beyond asinine and shows clear dishonesty.

Like assuming it's Iran that did it? Cos everyone and their dog has a few tomahawks?

 

[fizzBuzz]

Like assuming it's Iran that did it? Cos everyone and their dog has a few tomahawks?

I'm not saying Iran has Tomahawks. I'm not saying Iran bombed the school. I'm not saying Trump wasn't lying. I'm saying you prematurely jump to conclusions that suit your narrative.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Just now. Asked if "as commander in chief" he takes responsibility for the strike on the Minab school he answers:

I don't know about it

[1:15]


Source: https://youtu.be/9dlk1HwGcMs?si=sOkvI00Ws6PUxkXm&t=77

Wow. I'm shocked.

 

[Todd Feinman]

According to John Kelly (2022),


Hitler's generals didn't talk back? lost a war? plotted his assassination?
Hitler dismissed generals who did not deliver results, only to use them again later.

Military in democacies swear an oath on their constitution, not on the leader of the day.
What Trump really wants are a king's generals.

He'd like the military to swear a personal oath to him. As a certain toothbrush-mustachioed individual did in the past. It was horrendous for him when he and company were reminded that the military serves the constitution, and not the whims of a tyrant.
Now that we've been severed from our allies and no one trusts us anymore, we are in an endless war. Iran will never work with us or Israel again. They see us as an existential threat. You don't have to put a nuclear warhead on a missile and launch it; that's the least likely scenario of Iran using anything radioactive. The only person who had been "winning" since this second and final term is… Putin.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Just now. Asked if "as commander in chief" he takes responsibility for the strike on the Minab school he answers:

I don't know about it

[1:15]


Source: https://youtu.be/9dlk1HwGcMs?si=sOkvI00Ws6PUxkXm&t=77

I see what you did here... intentionally.

All of the words should be quoted here:

(background: very loud Marine One helicopter)
Reporter: I new report shows. A new report says that the military investigation has found the United States struck the school in Iran. As commander-in-chief, do you take responsibility for that?
Trump: That is what...
Reporter: As commander-in-chief, do you...
Trump: For what?
Reporter: For the strike on the school in Iran. A new report says the military investigation has found the United States struck the school.
Trump: I don't know about it.

"it" obviously being the report.

 

[Giddierone]

"it" obviously being the report.

Is it obvious? He obviously knows that "it" is the case of the school being bombed, and just days prior seemed to know information about it that no-one else was privy to. i.e. that "it was done by Iran" [see #103]

Now that several hours have passed and we can assume he does now "know about it" do you think he'll address the public specifically about this mistake? Or will he find some way to blame Iran?

 

[fizzBuzz]

Now that several hours have passed and we can assume he does now "know about it" do you think he'll address the public specifically about this mistake? Or will he find some way to blame Iran?

I have no clue what he's going to do. It's not like Trump to apologize for anything. I just know that I look at these things honestly and from the way the question was asked, it's obvious Trump was referring to the report, not the incident. "I don't know about [the report]". Why? because we already know he knows about the incident, as he's already commented on it several times. Was that a callous, dismissive response considering the magnitude of the incident - in my opinion, yes, but I wouldn't lie about the exchange like you did.

 

[Giddierone]

Was that a callous, dismissive response considering the magnitude of the incident *THAT HE LIED ABOUT*- in my opinion, yes, but I wouldn't lie about the exchange like you did.

 

[deirdre]

Now that several hours have passed and we can assume he does now "know about it"

he was in ohio and kentucky all day.. thats where he was heading from your video. he started in kentucky at 4:30 and reports say he gave an 1hour 10 minute speech...so he might just be back in DC now.

 

[deirdre]

I have no clue what he's going to do. It's not like Trump to apologize for anything. I just know that I look at these things honestly and from the way the question was asked, it's obvious Trump was referring to the report, not the incident. "I don't know about [the report]". Why? because we already know he knows about the incident, as he's already commented on it several times. Was that a callous, dismissive response considering the magnitude of the incident - in my opinion, yes, but I wouldn't lie about the exchange like you did.

here's the report the reporter is likely talking about. it is a New York Times article, but since the New York Times is behind a paywall im adding this Seattle Times reprint.

The article (anonymous sources of course) needs to be read IN FULL, lots of information in 1 article, but since i cant quote the whole thing this bit was new info for me:

Article:

In addition to the Defense Intelligence Agency and Central Command, investigators are examining the work of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, known as the NGA, which provides and examines satellite imagery of potential targets.

U.S. officials and others emphasized that the investigation was ongoing and there was more to learn, according to people briefed on the inquiry. Officials from Central Command declined to comment.

Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/u-s-at-fault-in-strike-on-school-in-iran-preliminary-inquiry-says/

https://archive.md/WmjGZ

 

[Ann K]

it" obviously being the report.

If "it" refers to the report, isn't the C in C supposed to know what's in the report? That's true whether he is speechifying elsewhere, sitting in the Oval Office, or out on the golf course. The man who holds the office should never be ignorant of what's going on in the world, and if there's a report, someone responsible should know what's in the report.

 

[fizzBuzz]

If "it" refers to the report, isn't the C in C supposed to know what's in the report?

When the reporter said "new report", I took that as the NYT article, or whoever first published it, not some official report released by some intelligence agency. Per the article @deirdre posted this information came from "officials briefed on the inquiry". This suggests it was not an officially released statement/report.

And no, I don't expect the president to know of every article published (but I don't think that's what you meant).

 

[Ann K]

When the reporter said "new report", I took that as the NYT article, or whoever first published it, not some official report released by some intelligence agency. Per the article @deirdre posted this information came from "officials briefed on the inquiry". This suggests it was not an officially released statement/report.

Surely "officials briefed on the inquiry" should include the president.

 

[NoParty]

Not so fast ...

Hegseth gutted offices that would have probed Iran school strike

The Pentagon chief last year slashed offices that didn't contribute to his goal of "lethality," including the group that assists in limiting risk to civilians, known as the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence. Around 200 employees who worked on the issue, including at that office, have been reduced by about 90 percent, according to two current and former officials and a person familiar with the effort. The team that handles civilian casualties at Central Command, which oversees the Middle East, has dropped from 10 to one.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/10/pentagon-iran-school-strike-civilian-casualties-00820780

Touché. You win this round, Gary C.

 

[FatPhil]

I see what you did here... intentionally.

All of the words should be quoted here:

Trump: For what?
Reporter: For the strike on the school in Iran. A new report says the military investigation has found the United States struck the school.
Trump: I don't know about it.

"it" obviously being the report.

English doesn't work that way. "What" and "it" are both placeholder pronouns in this context. The question "for what?" was answered unambiguously with a single noun phrase, so whatever follows the 'for' in the answer is now now the referent for placeholder pronouns. The sentence that followed was mere exposiiton. So the "it" refers back to the noun phrase in the answer to the question. The pronoun to use to refer to the exposition itself would be 'that', a demonstrative pronoun that shows that the focus has been changed onto something new.

 

[FatPhil]

If "it" refers to the report, isn't the C in C supposed to know what's in the report? That's true whether he is speechifying elsewhere, sitting in the Oval Office, or out on the golf course. The man who holds the office should never be ignorant of what's going on in the world, and if there's a report, someone responsible should know what's in the report.

Using fizzBuzz's apparent "'it' refers to the most recent noun phrase" logic, then 'it' is the school, not the report.
Of course, Trump's claims of not knowing about something are just a overused, and by now quite stale, deflection technique; concluding whether he knows anything about the matter in hand or not just from that statement is very naive.

 

[NoParty]

For my money, the disgusting part is that the man who started the war has no fucking idea about Shajareh Tayyebeh...
will get away with like he gets away felony convictions, treason, "grab 'em by the pussy" and on & on & on...

People can engage in partisan attempts to distract by quibbling about individual words, or asking "Do we really know
what a Tomahawk missile is, really? And what is war, after all? And what if we're all actually in a simulation?"