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

[John J.]

Military in democracies swear an oath on their constitution, not on the leader of the day.

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.

British service personnel swear an oath to the monarch, not the constitution (which is hard to identify/ specify in the UK; it's not codified).

I swear by Almighty God [or: do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm] that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and of the [admirals/generals/air officers] and officers set over me.

Wikipedia, Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)

To my surprise, the oaths taken in Canada, Australia and New Zealand are similar. Not sure of the position in other monarchies (including Japan).
(Had a quick look, the Swedish oath, primarily to the monarch, was abolished in 1975 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(Sweden))

A significant difference between this and any proposal to swear an oath to the US President is that the UK monarch is not the head of government, and will be aware that his predecessor and namesake Charles I was executed after being found guilty of attempting to

"...uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will..."

...including deploying loyal elements of the army without Parliamentary authority.

 

[deirdre]

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

um.. did you read that article? i appreciate you giving the link though.

do you know what Biden DID say initially? (i'm not criticizing biden, because i'm not that disgusted if a President makes a mistake -found out later- and defends the military during a chaotic situation.)

do you know when the investigation findings were reported. (20 days later)

 

[deirdre]

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

Metabunk is about debunking bunk. it is not about supporting anyone.

 

[Ann K]

@fizzBuzz

You say "back it up":

Since President Donald Trump was sworn into office in January, he has sat for just 12 presentations from intelligence officials of the President's Daily Brief.

That's a significant drop compared with Trump's first term in office, according to a POLITICO analysis of his public schedule.

In much of his first term, Trump met with intel officials twice a week for the briefing, which provides the intelligence community's summary of the most pressing national security challenges facing the nation.

The low number of briefings this time around is troubling to many in and around the intelligence community, who were already concerned about Trump's act-first-evaluate-after approach to governing.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/09/trump-intelligence-briefing-frequency-00338946

However, he's reportedly been skipping reading "the book," the vital, labor-intensive intelligence summary compiled daily by analysts and delivered five days a week to him and top aides.

Add to that his hit-or-miss attendance at in-person briefings – key moments where presidents get classified updates on global crises and covert operations – and critics say Trump may be flying blind while the world burns.
........
They also expressed concern that fewer top officials may now have access to the PDB, raising questions about whether vital information is reaching Trump unfiltered.

https://radaronline.com/p/donald-trump-skip-daily-intelligence-briefings-office-presidency/

 

[fizzBuzz]

went on TV to say he hadn't really heard anything about it but he thinks it was the Taliban who did it.

This was my response to Trump suggesting it was Iran:

Trump says they think bombing of school was done by Iran in error. I will be royally pissed if this isn't true and he's playing political games here. You don't play politics with the deaths of 175 kids! I don't mind if they are actually taking their time to investigate it, I'm not as impatient and I don't jump to conclusions like some on here, but I wish he wouldn't say this until they're certain.

Now, tell me when Trump said he hasn't heard anything about the bombing of the school.

Imagine if Biden, in the days after the accidental strike on civilians during the evacuation of Kabul airport in 2021

Interesting you mentioned this...

August 29th, 2021: strike killed 10 civilians, including 7 children. Tragic accident. Officials say there no known civilian casualties.

Army Maj. Gen. William Taylor said that there were no known civilian casualties following the strike.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/29/us-...-vehicle-packed-with-explosives-in-kabul.html

August 30th, 2021: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley calls it a "righteous strike"

"At this point, we think that the procedures were correctly followed and it was a righteous strike," he said in a press briefing.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bo...st-furor-involving-milley-operation-righteous

September 10th, 2021: New York Times investigation concludes the strike likely killed civilians, not ISIS militants and that there was no secondary explosion, as claimed by Mark Milley. (one link is paywalled NYT article, the other is a reference to the NYT article)

A new investigation claims that a US drone strike in Kabul did not take out a dangerous terrorist driving a car bomb, but an innocent Afghan aid worker employed by an American NGO, and the children who came to greet him.

A New York Times visual investigation published Friday, however, found no traces of secondary explosions, only the fragments of a Hellfire missile that killed Zemari Ahmadi and seven children.

https://www.rt.com/usa/534545-kabul-drone-strike-civilians-investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/world/asia/us-air-strike-drone-kabul-afghanistan-isis.html
Key question here - was the Biden administration covering something up?
Here is an ChatGPT synopsis of the investigation:

What the investigation found

According to the investigation:

• The man targeted was Zemari Ahmadi, an aid worker for a U.S.-based NGO.
• Surveillance footage showed him loading water containers into his car, which U.S. analysts may have mistaken for explosives.
• The strike killed 10 civilians, including 7 children from the same family.
• Video and damage analysis found no clear evidence of the "secondary explosion" the Pentagon initially cited as proof of a bomb in the vehicle.

The investigation relied on:

• security camera footage
• satellite imagery
• interviews with family and coworkers
• on-site analysis of the strike location

These findings were published September 10, 2021, about 12 days after the strike and 7 days before the U.S. military officially acknowledged the civilian deaths.

September 17th, 2021 (19 days after incident): US officially acknowledges the mistake:

Pentagon admits killing 10 civilians, including up to 7 children, in Kabul drone strike last month

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/17/us-...s-including-seven-children-pentagon-says.html

Investigations take time. And it doesn't mean it's being covered up.

 

[JMartJr]

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.

I sometimes wonder if HE is being misled by those showing him "what I have seen," and telling him what he hears. He is famously disinterested in having things explained to him, it would seem relatively low-risk to tell him briefly and simply what you want him to think, secure in the knowledge that he is extremely unlikely to want to listen to anybody else say more about it (he already knows all about it, you see) nor delve deeper on his own initiative. That might involve things like (shudder!) reading.

 

[deirdre]

That might involve things like (shudder!) reading.

luckily this is page 7, so i think there is no chance that comment will insult the younger generation and the tons of adults now who dont read to gather information!

 

[FatPhil]

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

Nonsense, unless you think the "that" ending the first question refers to the report:

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.

There's a continuous connection of the pronouns through that exchange.

So technically it's still nonsense even if you do think the initial "that" does refer to the report, because it clearly doesn't.

 

[Giddierone]

Common Sense has left the chat.

 

[Ann K]

I sometimes wonder if HE is being misled by those showing him "what I have seen," and telling him what he hears. He is famously disinterested in having things explained to him, it would seem relatively low-risk to tell him briefly and simply what you want him to think, secure in the knowledge that he is extremely unlikely to want to listen to anybody else say more about it (he already knows all about it, you see) nor delve deeper on his own initiative. That might involve things like (shudder!) reading.

Given his desire to shoot the messenger, I can see why his advisors are reluctant to take that step. It has happened before, though, only to have him repeat the voices in his own head despite having previously been corrected.

 

[deirdre]

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.

sure if you are going to clip off the sentence uttered before he responds, in order to prove some imaginary point.

You're never gonna convince me, because you are wrong on this one. can we move on?

 

[FatPhil]

sure if you are going to clip off the sentence uttered before he responds to prove some imaginary point.

You're never gonna convince me, because you are wrong on this one. can we move on?

All the pronouns are on full display - I established the connection between the first line I quoted in my first post and the final "it" previously, and the connection between the initial establishment of the referent to that first line in the one you are responding to now. A connects to B, B connects to C, therefore A connects to C.

I can accept that I will never convince you, but I don't know why you consider that a good thing. Personally, I like to correct my mistakes when I make them. Doubling down - and it seems infinituding down - on them reflects negatively upon the person so doing.

 

[deirdre]

Doubling down - and it seems infinituding down - on them reflects negatively upon the person so doing.

yes, it does.

 

[fizzBuzz]

All the pronouns are on full display - I established the connection between the first line I quoted in my first post and the final "it" previously, and the connection between the initial establishment of the referent to that first line in the one you are responding to now. A connects to B, B connects to C, therefore A connects to C.

I can accept that I will never convince you, but I don't know why you consider that a good thing. Personally, I like to correct my mistakes when I make them. Doubling down - and it seems infinituding down - on them reflects negatively upon the person so doing.

Argue with ChatGPT:
prompt:

In the following exchange, what or who do you think Trump is referring to when he says "I don't know about it":

(very loud Marine One helicopter in the background)
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.

response:

Based on the wording and structure of the exchange, the most natural reading is that Donald Trump is saying he does not know about the report or the finding, not that he doesn't know about the existence of Iran or the concept of the strike itself.

Why that interpretation is most likely

Look at the sequence:

1. Reporter: "A new report says the military investigation has found the United States struck the school in Iran."
2. Reporter repeats the question about responsibility.
3. Trump: "For what?"
4. Reporter clarifies again: "For the strike on the school in Iran. A new report says the military investigation has found the United States struck the school."
5. Trump: "I don't know about it."

Because the reporter explicitly frames the claim as coming from a "new report" and a "military investigation," the most direct grammatical reference for "it" is:

the report / the investigation's finding

So the likely meaning is:

"I'm not aware of that report or that finding."

Contextual factors in the clip

Two other clues reinforce this interpretation:

• The helicopter noise (Marine One) suggests a rushed exchange where he may not have fully heard the question the first time.
• His "For what?" response shows he may not have caught the topic immediately.

What he probably is not referring to

It is much less likely he meant:

• "I don't know about the strike itself" (i.e., unaware the U.S. carried it out).
• "I don't know about Iran."

Those would be unusually strong claims for a president and don't match the reporter's framing around a report.

Most plausible paraphrase

A clearer version of what he likely meant would be:

"I'm not aware of that report."

If you want, I can also show how different media outlets interpreted that exact quote, because some framed it as ignorance of the report while others framed it as denial of the strike.

 

[fizzBuzz]

For giggles...

prompt:

Do you agree with the following analysis of the exchange between Trump and the reporter?"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.

response:

The analysis you quoted raises a reasonable grammatical argument, but most linguists and discourse analysts would say it is too rigid for how pronouns actually work in real conversation, especially in noisy, unscripted exchanges like the one with Donald Trump speaking over Marine One.

Here are the key issues.

1. The claim that the noun phrase after "for what?" must become the pronoun's referent

The analysis says:

once the reporter answers "for the strike on the school in Iran," that noun phrase must become the referent of later pronouns like "it."

In formal written logic, that might be enforced. But in natural spoken discourse, it's not.
Speakers frequently use pronouns like "it" to refer to an entire proposition or claim, not just the nearest noun phrase.
Example structure (very common in English):

• Reporter: A report says X happened.
• Politician: I don't know about it.

Here, "it" normally refers to the report/claim, not the event described inside the report.

2. Pronouns often refer to propositions, not just noun phrases

In discourse linguistics, "it" can refer to a whole statement (a propositional antecedent).
Example:

• "They say the company is going bankrupt."
• "I don't know about it."

"it" refers to the claim, not "the company."
The reporter's wording included a proposition introduced twice:

"A new report says the military investigation has found the United States struck the school in Iran."

That proposition is a perfectly normal antecedent for "it."

3. The claim that "that" would be required instead of "it"

The analysis says the pronoun should have been "that" if referring to the exposition.

This is not how English works in practice. Both are common:

Examples politicians say constantly:

• "I don't know about it."
• "I haven't seen that."
• "I'm not aware of that."

All three can refer to a report or claim that was just mentioned.
So saying "it must refer to the noun phrase because 'that' would be required otherwise" is not linguistically supported.

4. Real-time speech weakens strict pronoun rules

This exchange also has features that reduce grammatical precision:

• extremely loud helicopter noise
• interruptions
• repeated questions

In such contexts, pronoun reference is often loose and pragmatic, not strictly syntactic.

✅ Bottom line
The analysis you quoted is not linguistically reliable because:

1. Pronouns in conversation are not restricted to the last noun phrase.
2. "It" frequently refers to an entire claim or report.
3. English does not require "that" instead of "it" in this situation.

So while the analysis is grammatically clever, it imposes formal logic rules that natural spoken English does not follow.

If you'd like, I can also show how linguists analyze pronoun reference in political press exchanges—there's actually a well-studied pattern where "I don't know about it" almost always refers to the report being mentioned, not the underlying event.

 

[deirdre]

Argue with ChatGPT:

interesting. i wonder how many of my comments people claim they don't understand, ChatGPT would understand? I always figured they dont understand my english because of geek-wired brain, but Chat GPT was designed by geeks.

I'm gonna be checkign that one out. Thanks for the idea!