US Attacks Iran 2026

[Szdfan]

Do you think the families of the 160 girls killed when the US bombed that school would agree with you? Didn’t Trump just threaten to destroy Iranian civilization? Doesn’t Pete Hegseth publicly pray to Jesus to help kill America’s enemies?

As has been pointed out here repeatedly, that was a school embedded in a military base as part of Iran's long-lasting technique of using human shields (particularly children) as part of military operations.

Blame should be placed where blame belongs. The Iranian regime (including their militas like Hamas and Hezbollah) decided to engage in a high degree of bellicosity to its neighbours and uses terrorism, attacking civilian targets, and use of children as human shields, and they should hold the blame for the consequences of doing that.

I drive to work and I go through a base consistently and I see a sign that tells me now entering (unnamed base) and then there’s a school immediately after.
As pointed out to you before, if it’s bad for the Iranians, it’s bad for the US.
You know what the US did when American bases were threatened by Iran? They moved the troops into hotels. Legally that makes a civilian building a war target.
That school was built years ago and the base built a wall separating it years ago as well.
You have 3 real options
1: US intelligence is stale. They’d still know it was a school
2: US intelligence claimed strategic target there
3: US missiles hit the wrong target.

Why was the clinic not hit? My assumption is that America had intelligence claiming that was a strategic target.
But this is just silly to keep bringing up that school as though it was their fault it got blown up.

John, are you aware that the Department of Defense Education Association (DoDEA) operates 161 schools on military bases across the world? Are you aware that in the US, there are also 160 public schools run by local school districts located on or near military bases?

https://www.militaryonesource.mil/educa ... allations/

I don’t believe the United States military using school children as human shields. Proximity alone doesn’t demonstrate intent.

[JohnH]

John, are you aware that the Department of Defense Education Association (DoDEA) operates 161 schools on military bases across the world? Are you aware that in the US, there are also 160 public schools run by local school districts located on or near military bases?

https://www.militaryonesource.mil/educa ... allations/

I don’t believe the United States military using school children as human shields. Proximity alone doesn’t demonstrate intent.

Children don't belong on military bases, nor do schools for children. The fact America does it doesn't make it okay.

(And, no, I don't think that military life is compatible with "family life" and raising a family - one should stop and consider the absurdity of it.)

[Szdfan]

John, are you aware that the Department of Defense Education Association (DoDEA) operates 161 schools on military bases across the world? Are you aware that in the US, there are also 160 public schools run by local school districts located on or near military bases?

https://www.militaryonesource.mil/educa ... allations/

I don’t believe the United States military using school children as human shields. Proximity alone doesn’t demonstrate intent.

Children don't belong on military bases, nor do schools for children. The fact America does it doesn't make it okay.

(And, no, I don't think that military life is compatible with "family life" and raising a family - one should stop and consider the absurdity of it.)

Well, satellite photos show that there had been a fence put up between the school and the military base for at least a decade. Technically, the school wasn’t part of the base. It was a civilian school in a converted former military building located next to a military base.

Also, I’ve noticed the argument has shifted again. First, the claim was that Iran was using a school as human shields. Now the argument is that children shouldn’t be on military bases at all and soldiers shouldn’t have families. Those are different issues.

[JohnH]

Also, I’ve noticed the argument has shifted again. First, the claim was that Iran was using a school as human shields. Now the argument is that children shouldn’t be on military bases at all and soldiers shouldn’t have families. Those are different issues.

I don't think families should be raised on military bases, and yes, this amounts to having human shields for all practical intents and purposes.

You may be surprised to hear this but I generally don't like seeing a martial society portrayed as somehow normal or organising society around it and I also don't like family and children being used as shields to enable bellicose behaviour.

[Szdfan]

Also, I’ve noticed the argument has shifted again. First, the claim was that Iran was using a school as human shields. Now the argument is that children shouldn’t be on military bases at all and soldiers shouldn’t have families. Those are different issues.

I don't think families should be raised on military bases, and yes, this amounts to having human shields for all practical intents and purposes.

You may be surprised to hear this but I generally don't like seeing a martial society portrayed as somehow normal or organising society around it and I also don't like family and children being used as shields to enable bellicose behaviour.

I think your claim stretches the definition of human shields too far. There's a difference between intentionally placing civilians next to military targets in order to deter attack and the reality that military families are going to be located near where soldiers are stationed. I also don't support the militarization of society, but soldiers are also human and deserve to have lives outside of their profession.

My childhood in West Berlin was an example of this. In the limited space of a city surrounded by a literal wall, it was impossible not to place military institutions next to civilians. I attended the John F. Kennedy Schule, a civilian school that had both the German and American educational systems as a way of building a bridge between both countries. Before the end of the US occupation, there were lots of DoD kids there even though the military ran its own schools on base.

We weren't human shields. There was neither an attempt to militarize civilian life or to use civilians to prevent a Soviet attack. It was just the recognition that soldiers also deserved to have their families near them. I think that's a human thing to do.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Also, I’ve noticed the argument has shifted again. First, the claim was that Iran was using a school as human shields. Now the argument is that children shouldn’t be on military bases at all and soldiers shouldn’t have families. Those are different issues.

I don't think families should be raised on military bases, and yes, this amounts to having human shields for all practical intents and purposes.

You may be surprised to hear this but I generally don't like seeing a martial society portrayed as somehow normal or organising society around it and I also don't like family and children being used as shields to enable bellicose behaviour.

I think your claim stretches the definition of human shields too far. There's a difference between intentionally placing civilians next to military targets in order to deter attack and the reality that military families are going to be located near where soldiers are stationed. I also don't support the militarization of society, but soldiers are also human and deserve to have lives outside of their profession.

My childhood in West Berlin was an example of this. In the limited space of a city surrounded by a literal wall, it was impossible not to place military institutions next to civilians. I attended the John F. Kennedy Schule, a civilian school that had both the German and American educational systems as a way of building a bridge between both countries. Before the end of the US occupation, there were lots of DoD kids there even though the military ran its own schools on base.

We weren't human shields. There was neither an attempt to militarize civilian life or to use civilians to prevent a Soviet attack. It was just the recognition that soldiers also deserved to have their families near them. I think that's a human thing to do.

So how large a “buffer zone “ would be required? My wife’s high school was really close to a military base. It was fully civilian run, the spread of communities because of natural growth simply used available land.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Also, I’ve noticed the argument has shifted again. First, the claim was that Iran was using a school as human shields. Now the argument is that children shouldn’t be on military bases at all and soldiers shouldn’t have families. Those are different issues.

I don't think families should be raised on military bases, and yes, this amounts to having human shields for all practical intents and purposes.

You may be surprised to hear this but I generally don't like seeing a martial society portrayed as somehow normal or organising society around it and I also don't like family and children being used as shields to enable bellicose behaviour.

This has happened since the beginning of time. Soldiers are, well, human.

[Soloist]

Also, I’ve noticed the argument has shifted again. First, the claim was that Iran was using a school as human shields. Now the argument is that children shouldn’t be on military bases at all and soldiers shouldn’t have families. Those are different issues.

I don't think families should be raised on military bases, and yes, this amounts to having human shields for all practical intents and purposes.

You may be surprised to hear this but I generally don't like seeing a martial society portrayed as somehow normal or organising society around it and I also don't like family and children being used as shields to enable bellicose behaviour.

So US bases with daycares, school and hospitals are of course different.

Might it be a protection mindset against those who don’t want school for girls? Might it be economics? It could of course be for future propaganda.

The U.S. doesn't have a history of trying to use schools, hospitals, etc as (a) launching sites for missiles, and (b) trying to draw attacks towards then for propaganda purposes.

Like it or not, the Iranian regime does.

You could have simply said that you objected to US doing it too here as you apparently are now.


the US military has housing, shopping, recreation, daycare, hospitals and schools all on military bases. I worked on a base in base housing.
This is the military and how it works. If someone targeted the laundry facility or star bucks on an CV I don't think anyone would think it was targeted at those things but if someone were to bomb a school on a US base, you can count on the propaganda being laid on thick about it not being a war target regardless of if it was intentional or not.

[JohnH]

Also, I’ve noticed the argument has shifted again. First, the claim was that Iran was using a school as human shields. Now the argument is that children shouldn’t be on military bases at all and soldiers shouldn’t have families. Those are different issues.

I don't think families should be raised on military bases, and yes, this amounts to having human shields for all practical intents and purposes.

You may be surprised to hear this but I generally don't like seeing a martial society portrayed as somehow normal or organising society around it and I also don't like family and children being used as shields to enable bellicose behaviour.

So US bases with daycares, school and hospitals are of course different.

Might it be a protection mindset against those who don’t want school for girls? Might it be economics? It could of course be for future propaganda.

The U.S. doesn't have a history of trying to use schools, hospitals, etc as (a) launching sites for missiles, and (b) trying to draw attacks towards then for propaganda purposes.

Like it or not, the Iranian regime does.

You could have simply said that you objected to US doing it too here as you apparently are now.


the US military has housing, shopping, recreation, daycare, hospitals and schools all on military bases. I worked on a base in base housing.
This is the military and how it works. If someone targeted the laundry facility or star bucks on an CV I don't think anyone would think it was targeted at those things but if someone were to bomb a school on a US base, you can count on the propaganda being laid on thick about it not being a war target regardless of if it was intentional or not.

And the reality is targeting is simply not that precise.

[temporal1]

And the reality is targeting is simply not [ALWAYS] that precise.

and mistakes are made, on all sides. friendly fire incidents happen. very little on earth is 100%. abortion comes close.

i remember video of the 9-11-2001 terrorists in a cave, learning that damage to buildings and loss of life far exceeded their hopes+plans. they celebrated. that was a sobering sight. they intended to harm, the more the better.

- - - - - - -

wrt this school in Iran, it was reported to be FORMER military, now used for civilian purposes.
oj was correct, i live near a former military base, probably from WWII, closed about 30 years ago.

Growing up i was forbidden to go near it, it wasn’t difficult to avoid. After closure, the village near it worked with the federal gov to remove all military ties for the conversion. Military bases provide for the military and their families.

i’m pretty sure there’s a current civilian daycare, library, sports facilities, etc., civilian life is there, with LOTS of children and teens.

early on i read the strike happened in Iran because the military status had not been updated. bad information.
i have no idea if this is true or what current reports are. as oj suggests, yes, i can easily imagine all of this happening - in my close area. grave mistakes are made. in addition to deliberate harm.