> To this day we don't know what actually happened.
I feel like we know enough already. A school was bombed, the ones who did it sucks big time and should be held responsible. Currently, the US and Israel is waging a war against Iran, and one of them dropped the bomb(s), unless suddenly Iran got their hands on American weapons, then that needs to be investigated too, because someone surely dropped the ball at that point.
The basics remain the same, investigations have to be launched to figure out where exactly in the chain of command, someone made a mistake, and then hold that person(s) responsible for their fuck up.
I think it's likely that the explosion was caused by a US strike. But we don't actually know for sure that that's what happened - the US government has not confirmed it.
We also don't know anything about casualties - we only have the IRGC statements, and they are not reliable.
> Have those investigations been launched?
Yes, according to the US government, an investigation is underway. But its starting point is determining what caused the explosion.
How long does it take to look at the coordinates programmed into the cruise missiles? Or to review existing satellite imagery for the location and other intelligence sources?
If this was a school (which seems likely at this point) and if this was a US TLAM that hit it (which also seems likely at this point) then we should expect a lot of casualties when it's hit during school time (which also seems likely). And yes, we shouldn't trust what the IRGC is saying.
I think I'm on your side but in this case the correct course of action for the US would have been to quickly own up to the mistake. There is really not a lot of ambiguity here. This doesn't seem to be a case like "shots were fired from the school window" or some sort of dual use with IRGC having offices in the school. If there was a reason for the targeting then presumably we'd have a statement about it already.
Mistakes can be made and are always made in war. Leaving this open like this is damaging to the war effort.
What have they done to deserve your trust? They started a war that they deny is a war. They told us a year ago they set Iran back a decade. Then they tell us 9 months later they're weeks from a nuclear bomb. I wouldn't trust the warmongers to admit they're child killers.
I haven't said anything about trusting them. I am simply correcting statements about what the US has supposedly "admitted".
It's one thing to say "I think the US did XYZ".
It's quite another to say "It is an objective truth that the US did XYZ, in fact they even admitted it".
Transposed to the Guardian, if they want to write "we think the US did XYZ", they should clearly frame it as an opinion piece. Instead they are writing "it is an objective truth that the US did XYZ" - which is false. That is journalistic malpractice.
It would be journalistic malpractice to avoid reporting on anything that the government does that the government isn't willing to admit publically to doing. It's possible to ascertain facts, even of the actions of the US government, to a level of certainty sufficient to report them as facts, even when the government disputes the facts.
Repeating the IRGC claim that "American forces killed between 175 and 180 people, most of them girls between the ages of seven and 12" without attribution or scrutiny, is not "reporting".
It's fine to be skeptical of the claims of the US government. But the IRGC is also a government - more specifically a totalitarian government built on lies and aggression. To distrust the former while blindly trusting the latter is inconsistent and foolish.
Are you familiar with the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza? We've been through this sort of circus before... Those of us who paid attention learned to not rush to conclusions, and never, ever trust social media or the western press to overcome or even understand information warfare.
> Are you familiar with the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza?
I am not
> Those of us who paid attention learned to not rush to conclusions, and never, ever trust social media or the western press to overcome or even understand information warfare.
Since you highlight western press can't be trusted to overcome / understand information warfare, would you care to provide some write-ups detailing the viewpoints you hint at, in the context of this Al-Ahli hospital incident?
The Al-Ahli hospital, the one that Israel tried to say was a PIJ missile that misfired?
The Israeli propaganda was false in that case, and they probably hit the hospital. The PIJ missiles' ballistic trajectory did not match with the hospital, and most or all their fuel had burned [1]. I recommend you read the whole text, it's quite short.
But I don't see what you mean here, if the takeaway from Al-Ahli is not to trust the US/Israel when they shift the blame for hitting civilian targets... then applying that lesson here means that we should not trust the US/Israel when they try to shift the blame in this case. The US hit the school. That much is beginning to be obvious.
Congratulations, you found the one fringe publication that contradicts the overwhelming consensus from OSINT and official investigations alike. You wanted so badly Israel to be responsible, that you decided to trust the least credible source possible.
Least credible? Fringe? Forensic Architecture is a very respected source that has done in-depth technical analysis of many, many accidents and incidents, e.g. the Beirut port explosion. Articles from Forensic Architecture are often featured on HN.
It received the Peabody award in 2021. It received the Right Livelihood award in 2024. It is a research unit under the university of London. Its reports have been used as evidence in cases in the Israeli supreme court and in the UN. The project has gotten numerous grants from the European research council, collaborated with Bellingcat, Amnesty international, and ACLED [1]
Your kneejerk reaction to information that contradicts your priors is obvious. If you had bothered to do even a small google search you could have checked what FA actually is, rather than just lash out.
You haven't addressed the fact that the overwhelming OSINT consensus contradicts their claim, making it fringe by definition.
I am very familiar with FA, and with that particular paper. That's the thing with echo chambers: the people inside of it are all repeating the same exact talking points, drawing from the same narrow set of "approved" sources. And in the case of Al-ahli, the set is very, very narrow, so it gets repeated a lot.
Al-ahli is the ultimate test, because the evidence is so one-sided. If you can convince yourself, against overwhelming evidence, that Israel is still responsible - then you can convince yourself of anything.
You have not presented any evidence, you're just claiming there is a consensus, and that it's foolproof. Please stop the posturing and produce something. As it is your post contains zero information content.
Afaik, the cause of the explosion has not been conclusively shown by anyone, and it is still contested. But FA has presented the most detailed analysis of all.
You're also painting with vey broad strokes, making claims about me picking from a narrow set of sources. Based on what? Vibes? Why don't you throw out some more accusations while you're at it.
If you're familiar with FA, then your claim that they are not credible is very strange indeed. Because they are very thorough in their analysis, and known for it. It seems you have some very strong ideological reasons not to like the conclusions they come to.
> making claims about me picking from a narrow set of sources. Based on what?
Based on the fact that you only provided one source? I did find two more sources that corroborate your claim that Israel is responsible: Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad...
> Because they are very thorough in their analysis, and known for it. It seems you have some very strong ideological reasons not to like the conclusions they come to.
Hamas and PIJ are ridiculous sources to use in this case, I will not use them.
Equally ridiculous is to use the IDF or the Biden admin as sources. They are also party to the war.
Using Canadian and French government sources is less ridiculous, but they are still aligned with Israel, and therefore have a motive to side with the IDF. HRW and Bellingcat are good sources on this front. The WSJ is an ok source.
Please show your work. You should open up what the sources actually say. Simply dumping documents on someone is not a good way to argue. You're making me do your work for you.
US govt source
- party to the war
- no analysis shared
Canadian govt
- no analysis shared
- state that evidence is inconclusive, but points to rocket from within Gaza
French govt (anonymous French official)
- state that evidence is inconclusive, but size points to rocket from within Gaza
IDF
- party to the war, unreliable source
- identifies the PIJ missiles are responsible, the same ones that FA showed were not
HRW
- extensive text, first serious source in your list
- argues that the fire damage is consistent with rocket fuel burning up
- notes that a misfire may be the cause of that
- argues that the size of the blast is inconsistent with the larger IDF bombs
- does not conclude anything, but draws partial conclusions that are consistent with a misfire
- notes that the IDF hit the same hospital three days earlier with a missile
- notes that the IDF was hitting targets near the hospital at the time of the explosion
WSJ
- Shows footage of a rocket exploding in the air, claims this is a misfired rocket that explodes in the air and falls in the hospital parking lot
- The NYT [2] shows that the videos of the rocket exploding in the air are unrelated
- The HRW source also seems to comment on these videos (they could be other similar videos, they don't identify them), saying they are unrelated Israeli interceptors
Bellingcat
- reports that an impact crater has been identified
- reports what the IDF has commented on it
- no conclusion
Let me add one source, for now, since this list is quite long.
NYT source [1]
- discounts the video evidence used by the WSJ source (much like HRW)
- notes that the IDF hit the same hospital three days earlier with a missile
- notes that the IDF was hitting targets near the hospital at the time of the explosion
> And what conclusions would that be?
The evidence is inconclusive. Which FA also states. It is still unclear where the particular rocket that hit this hospital came from. Israel targeted and destroyed many other hospitals in Gaza during the genocide, so that is not unlikely. Rockets from Gaza do also misfire, and it is also possible that that was the cause, just not any of the rockets that have been identified. FA has also shown that the impact crater features are consistent with the rocket travelling from the direction of Israeli positions.
What is clear is that you are mischaracterizing your position as an "OSINT consensus". There is no consensus, and nobody who isn't the IDF has made a conclusive statement about who is at fault. Also claiming I use a narrow set of sources because I only cite the clearest one is simply mischaracterization. It's bad faith argument.
The point was that the particular claim that Israel made, the one about a PIJ rocket, has been discounted. Which was my original point. The IDF has lied through its teeth through all conflicts its been in (then later revised its statements quietly). About the death toll in Gaza. About the ambulance crew that was massacred. About not purposefully targeting civilian infrastructure.
The IDF and the Israeli government lie about their acts of war constantly and cannot be trusted. The same is true for the US government.
I feel like we know enough already. A school was bombed, the ones who did it sucks big time and should be held responsible. Currently, the US and Israel is waging a war against Iran, and one of them dropped the bomb(s), unless suddenly Iran got their hands on American weapons, then that needs to be investigated too, because someone surely dropped the ball at that point.
The basics remain the same, investigations have to be launched to figure out where exactly in the chain of command, someone made a mistake, and then hold that person(s) responsible for their fuck up.
Have those investigations been launched?