The myth that Iran purposely avoided American casualties

[Private Pickle]

Why this myth continues on is beyond me.

The strike was the widest scale attack on a base housing US troops in decades. Troops said the absence of casualties was nothing short of a "miracle."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/middl...ntl/index.html

Are our troops lying?

Pentagon says Iran intended to 'kill personnel' in missile attack

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...missile-attack

Is the Pentagon lying?

Are the people perpetrating this myth doing so to justify the U.S.'s lack of response?

[Safety]

My guess is that it was like the airstrike Trump ordered in Syria that only defaced some runways, but not enough to prevent planes from using it.

[Green Arrow]

It’s also come out now that Trump authorized the strike on Suleimani 7 months ago, which contradicts the talking point that it was done to prevent an imminent attack and it had nothing to do with the embassy attack.

[Adelaide]

Seems like a lot of aspects of this scrimmage are not making a whole lot of sense, and I do not think there are any good resources to try and understand what the reality is.

[Private Pickle]

Seems like a lot of aspects of this scrimmage are not making a whole lot of sense, and I do not think there are any good resources to try and understand what the reality is.

Well just on the surface lobbing ballistic missiles at military bases often times has the intention to kill whomever are on those bases.

[DGUtley]

It’s also come out now that Trump authorized the strike on Suleimani 7 months ago, which contradicts the talking point that it was done to prevent an imminent attack and it had nothing to do with the embassy attack.

It apparently came with the precondition "if Iran's increased aggression resulted in the death of an American". https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...tions-n1113271 That decision explains why assassinating Soleimani was on the menu of options that the military presented to Trump two weeks ago for responding to an attack by Iranian proxies in Iraq, in which a U.S. contractor was killed and four U.S. service members were wounded, the officials said. However it does undermine the stated justification of imminence.

[Green Arrow]

It apparently came with the precondition "if Iran's increased aggression resulted in the death of an American". https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...tions-n1113271 That decision explains why assassinating Soleimani was on the menu of options that the military presented to Trump two weeks ago for responding to an attack by Iranian proxies in Iraq, in which a U.S. contractor was killed and four U.S. service members were wounded, the officials said. However it does undermine the stated justification of imminence.

It also contradicts the justification that it was also in response to the embassy attack - it wasn’t.

[carolina73]

My guess is that it was like the airstrike Trump ordered in Syria that only defaced some runways, but not enough to prevent planes from using it.

(CNN)The US airstrike on Syria's Shayrat airbase Friday destroyed about 20% of the Syrian government's operational aircraft.

[Safety]

(CNN)The US airstrike on Syria's Shayrat airbase Friday destroyed about 20% of the Syrian government's operational aircraft.

It's CNN, so isn't that fake news?

[Private Pickle]

It's CNN, so isn't that fake news?

Only when it doesn't agree with them.