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?"

 

[fizzBuzz]

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

Should it have? Who were the officials?

 

[fizzBuzz]

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.

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.

You can play all these games you want. I have conversations with people every day and to me, in context "I don't know about it" refers to the report mentioned by the reporter. If you think differently, then give evidence that supports what you think he meant by "I don't know about it". And keep in mind, Trump doesn't speak English very well...

 

[Giddierone]

It was a question about responsibility, which he immediately side-stepped having previously lied about knowing about it: "based on what I've seen, that was done by Iran..." [#103].

 

[deirdre]

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.

the topic of the reporters question is "a new report on the school bombing". But thanks for playing.

 

[Ann K]

Should it have?

And in the very next post you say:

You can play all these games you want.

I can see who's playing games. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[deirdre]

And keep in mind, Trump doesn't speak English very well...

he spoke fine this time.

ps. Dont you think its odd that noone here is discussing the New York Times report, and are fixated on demonizing Trump? One wonders if they actually care what exactly caused the children to be killed.

 

[Ann K]

the topic of the reporters question is "a new report on the school bombing". But thanks for playing.

The topic of the reporter (and this thread) is the bombing of the school, which Trump has already lied about. His pretend-ignorance has all the believability of a small child with crumbs on his lips who claims he was never in that cookie jar.

The report only reiterates what we've already heard ...and it is not what Trump has been saying.

 

[deirdre]

The topic of the reporter (and this thread) is the bombing of the school, which Trump has already lied about.

the topic is "did you see the new report on the school bombing and what do you have to say about it".

I believe he was ignorant about the New York Times report at the time of the question. (fyi leaking classified information is a crime. i'm happy that [allegedly] someone in congress leaked something, but i think its disgusting when people-from either side of the aisle- leak details on investigations. That's why minnesota was cut out of the renee good investigation. leaking is not funny. The publics curiosity should not trump our laws.)

add: i do think Tim walz could be trusted with investigation info, but not the mayor.

 

[jplaza]

I believe he was annoyed by the question and he simply dodged it.

 

[JMartJr]

He'd like the military to swear a personal oath to him. As a certain toothbrush-mustachioed individual did in the past.

It may be worth noting that the transition from soldiers taking an oath of loyalty to the state to an oath of loyalty to an individual leader is one of the changes that was important in the fall of the Roman Republic and rise of the imperial system.

During the Republic, military oaths promised fidelity to Rome. As the Republic fell apart, there are some claims that Julius Caesar had his legions swear allegience to him, but there is also some doubt about this.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41531205


In the next generation, as Caesars heir Gaius Octavius (Octavian, later Augustus) was slugging it out with rival wannabe heir Marcus Antonius, oaths of loyalty to the general personally were used, and when Octavius became the Emperor Augustus he set the precedent (followed by his successors) of oaths of all legions, not just those he personally commanded, were made not to the state, not to their general, but to the Emperor.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/707277

During the conflict between Octavius and Antonius, Octavian took this a step further, with a "voluntary" oath from everybody in Italy to support him!

The Oath of Italy (Coniuratio Italiae) was an historical event that took place in 32 BC, by which Italy swore allegiance to Octavian Caesar in the Final war of the Roman Republic against Cleopatra and Mark Antony. Augustus himself retells the facts in the Res Gestae Divi Augusti: "The whole of Italy voluntarily took oath of allegiance to me and demanded me as its leader in the war in which I was victorious at Actium."[1] Following the event, the Western provinces of Sicily, Sardinia, Spain and Gaul also sided with Augustus, and the same happened with the Eastern provinces and Egypt following the conflict. The Oath of Italy was foundational for the birth of the Roman Empire in a similar way that the Oath of Brutus was declared to overthrow the Roman Kingdom, as both were used as an expression of the will of the people.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coniuratio_Italiae

Whether or not the leaders of the current regime in Washington would LIKE the military to do this in relationship to the President seems speculative -- at any rate, they have not attempted to carry out such a plan, to my knowledge. And while it was a part of the process that led to the collapse of the previous world-straddling republic as it transitioned into autocracy, I'm not sure to what extent it was a cause and to what extent effect of that change. Nor would I expect an exact replay of that process in our time, even if we were to be undergoing such a transition (I fear so more some days than others.)

 

[enilc]

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

On the contrary, the only thing that you can reliably assume is that this administration will attempt to cover-up and lie about any negative action of which it is guilty.

 

[deirdre]

In the old days both these threads would have been thrown into Rambles.

 

[fizzBuzz]

And in the very next post you say:


I can see who's playing games. You're embarrassing yourself.

I'm not playing games. You assumed Trump should have known about this NYT article. I'm genuinely asking why do you think the president should be aware of a specific NYT article?

 

[fizzBuzz]

I believe he was annoyed by the question and he simply dodged it.

I agree, I think this is probably true. I think he meant "it" was the referenced "report", or NYT article, and he callously dismissed it. An argument for him not even fully hearing what the reporter said and just brushed it off makes sense too. But suggesting "I don't know about it" is about the bombing of the school itself is intentionally disingenuous.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

President Trump does not read briefings (it's not clear that he's really even capable of reading at a grade level necessary for doing so) and does not even like attending briefing meetings, and the Cabinet sessions he does attend are essentially bootlicking sessions where everyone at the table goes around and praises him and tells whatever generic lies they need to in order to stay on his good side. You can go watch the videos of the ones they've recorded and published. It's a national embarassment. The President has repeatedly gone on TV and told lies and tried to deflect from any critical questions and directly insulted reporters who ask such questions. This is relevant to this thread because it is rather unprecedented to have such a horridly morally depraved and corrupt administration that is willing to behave like this and it affects what information is available and circulating about the event.

 

[fizzBuzz]

On the contrary, the only thing that you can reliably assume is that this administration will attempt to cover-up and lie about any negative action of which it is guilty.

President Trump does not read briefings (it's not clear that he's really even capable of reading at a grade level necessary for doing so) and does not even like attending briefing meetings, and the Cabinet sessions he does attend are essentially bootlicking sessions where everyone at the table goes around and praises him and tells whatever generic lies they need to in order to stay on his good side. You can go watch the videos of the ones they've recorded and published. It's a national embarassment. The President has repeatedly gone on TV and told lies and tried to deflect from any critical questions and directly insulted reporters who ask such questions. This is relevant to this thread because it is rather unprecedented to have such a horridly morally depraved and corrupt administration that is willing to behave like this and it affects what information is available and circulating about the event.

1. Back it up - with links and quotes from reliable source.
2. Be honest - Just go where the facts take you. Don't try to frame something towards a particular point of view.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

 

[jplaza]

I agree, I think this is probably true. I think he meant "it" was the referenced "report", or NYT article, and he callously dismissed it. An argument for him not even fully hearing what the reporter said and just brushed it off makes sense too. But suggesting "I don't know about it" is about the bombing of the school itself is intentionally disingenuous.

If you agree he just dodged an unconfortable question, then there is no need for the mental gymnastics about what "It" means.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

I'm not playing games. You assumed Trump should have known about this NYT article. I'm genuinely asking why do you think the president should be aware of a specific NYT article?

The President should be aware of the current status of intel briefings which he should be receiving daily, or more than daily, during an active war. I don't think anyone is suggesting he personally should be frequently skimming the NYT frontpage for new articles to learn things about his own administration.

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

Maybe the fact that the President of the United States said "based on what I've seen, that was done by Iran" is why people are concerned that the administration was attempting to cover it up and suppress potential criticism by spreading misinformation that confused and misdirected the public discussion about it.

This endless deflection away from the bad actions of high-ranking government officials, and characterizing it as "TDS", is so tiresome and ridiculous.

Imagine if Biden, in the days after the accidental strike on civilians during the evacuation of Kabul airport in 2021, went on TV to say he hadn't really heard anything about it but he thinks it was the Taliban who did it. That would be rightfully criticized. But that didn't happen, and I think everyone understands why that kind of behavior did not happen in the Biden administration, but did happen in the Trump administration.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/29/asia/afghanistan-kabul-evacuation-intl

 

[fizzBuzz]

If you agree he just dodged an unconfortable question, then there is no need for the mental gymnastics about what "It" means.

This is why it's necessary:

misleading:

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

dishonest:

For my money, the disgusting part is that the man who started the war has no fucking idea about Shajareh Tayyebeh...

 

[deirdre]

it is rather unprecedented to have such a horridly morally depraved and corrupt administration

is it?

then there is no need for the mental gymnastics about what "It" means.

and what is the need for the mental gymnastics trying to gaslight readers that the question was not about a new report?

 

[deirdre]

The President should be aware of the current status of intel briefings which he should be receiving daily, or more than daily, during an active war.

why would a NYTimes article be part of an intel briefing?

and do we even know if the article was published BEFORE that mornings intel briefing? (not that a news article would be in an intel briefing,imo)


Trump does plenty of things wrongs, and legitimately lies or dodges on plenty of things.. this is 1. a nothing burger and 2. y'all are wrong. Why is MB wasting a 1/2 a page arguing about something so trivial and petty? Why is MB not discussing the information IN the freaking article!?!

 

[Todd Feinman]

It may be worth noting that the transition from soldiers taking an oath of loyalty to the state to an oath of loyalty to an individual leader is one of the changes that was important in the fall of the Roman Republic and rise of the imperial system.

During the Republic, military oaths promised fidelity to Rome. As the Republic fell apart, there are some claims that Julius Caesar had his legions swear allegience to him, but there is also some doubt about this.

View attachment 89081
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41531205


In the next generation, as Caesars heir Gaius Octavius (Octavian, later Augustus) was slugging it out with rival wannabe heir Marcus Antonius, oaths of loyalty to the general personally were used, and when Octavius became the Emperor Augustus he set the precedent (followed by his successors) of oaths of all legions, not just those he personally commanded, were made not to the state, not to their general, but to the Emperor.

View attachment 89082
https://www.jstor.org/stable/707277

During the conflict between Octavius and Antonius, Octavian took this a step further, with a "voluntary" oath from everybody in Italy to support him!

The Oath of Italy (Coniuratio Italiae) was an historical event that took place in 32 BC, by which Italy swore allegiance to Octavian Caesar in the Final war of the Roman Republic against Cleopatra and Mark Antony. Augustus himself retells the facts in the Res Gestae Divi Augusti: "The whole of Italy voluntarily took oath of allegiance to me and demanded me as its leader in the war in which I was victorious at Actium."[1] Following the event, the Western provinces of Sicily, Sardinia, Spain and Gaul also sided with Augustus, and the same happened with the Eastern provinces and Egypt following the conflict. The Oath of Italy was foundational for the birth of the Roman Empire in a similar way that the Oath of Brutus was declared to overthrow the Roman Kingdom, as both were used as an expression of the will of the people.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coniuratio_Italiae

Whether or not the leaders of the current regime in Washington would LIKE the military to do this in relationship to the President seems speculative -- at any rate, they have not attempted to carry out such a plan, to my knowledge. And while it was a part of the process that led to the collapse of the previous world-straddling republic as it transitioned into autocracy, I'm not sure to what extent it was a cause and to what extent effect of that change. Nor would I expect an exact replay of that process in our time, even if we were to be undergoing such a transition (I fear so more some days than others.)

Thank you for that! We'll have to see if the die is cast or not.

 

[Ann K]

I'm not playing games. You assumed Trump should have known about this NYT article. I'm genuinely asking why do you think the president should be aware of a specific NYT article?

I'm assuming Trump should have known about the bombing of the school; the article just says, in essence, "we agree with previous reports". The president feigned innocence, when he had previously lied about Iran doing it, and when Tomahawk missiles were shown to have been used, he lied again about who had them.

I'm genuinely wondering why you still believe and support him, or whether you support him even though you don't believe him.