I think the word you were looking for was 'negligent'. As in the bombing was 'clearly negligent'. It wasn't something that just happened, it was something that high ranking officials purposefully did and they did it negligently.

And accident would imply they didn't want to bomb a school but this happened due to an honest mistake (already a tall order when you are dropping bombs in an area with civilian infrastructure).

In truth it was probably that the US didn't care about the collateral damage of bombing targets regardless of what is there.

Let's not pretend the US has much issues killing civilians in other countries. Your president just gave a speech at the UN talking about "annihilating Iran" and "driving them into hell".

Even after that people still contort their thoughts in the illusion that the US would never bomb a school. Imagine if Iran's president gave a speech talking the same way about Israel or the US, would you give Iran the same benefit of doubt?

1. Iran’s strongest weapon is keeping Hormuz closed. 2. Those who want to blow up Iran also influence public support (and government support too, I’d add) 3. The military “excursion” is already incredibly unpopular but that hasn’t stopped Trump or other racist POS Hegseth or even all the GOP and even some dems from keeping it going.

Absolutely the Iranian government murdered protesters but it’s a stretch to also say they’d “happily” somehow get the US the bomb a school.

It’s a dumb strategy anyway. We’re still blowing up kids in Gaza and calling them future terrorists and crisis actors and saying “what about their pre-existing health conditions” about kids who died of starvation.

Yes, we are the baddies.

Astonishing with how much you can get away with by wearing a suit. If he would be wearing rugs, a lynch mob would beat the shit out of him. I'm not implying that's desirable, I'm just baffled by societies criteria, which swing from one extreme to another. And neither one makes sense.