It's not a case of defending (the school may not have been an intentional target, especially had it been known to be a school) as trying to explain.Rawley is doing a much better job defending the slaughter of these children in his post than you are in yours. He's questioning all of reality in general instead of pretending a school of girls can be mistaken for a military target with all of our current technology.
Both Rawley's and my posts combine to give the fuller perspective.