Thread

Iran school bombing: grounds to believe US was behind atrocity, UN finds

354 points · 307 comments · hebelehubele

Wildgoose · 1789657415 · focus · HN ↗
Seeing as it was a "double tap" it was clearly a deliberate target. Bomb the school, wait until officers from the nearby base with kids at the school arrive to try and rescue their daughters and hit it again. Clearly a war crime, possibly using Israeli targeting information, which clouds which State is ultimately responsible.
1. jvanderbot · 1789657716 · focus · HN ↗
  Yes, the definition of war crime is not "intentionally targeted building" it is "intentionally targeted building that it knew was non-military and full of civilians". If you plausibly believed it to be a military target, then it's plausibly not a war crime.
  The question about whether US launched the missiles is not really in dispute, the intent and knowledge is in dispute. NYT did a great analysis essentially concluding it was plausibly a mistake, not an intentional or indiscriminate civilian attack.
  More here: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49739018#49741081">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49739018#49741081
  1. pphysch · 1789658112 · focus · HN ↗
    How can anyone take this argument seriously when the DoW was simultaneously committing dozens of extrajudicial executions of small boat users in the Gulf?
    mthoms · 1789658575 · focus · HN ↗
    In all sincerity, people take it seriously because it helps them sleep at night.
    wand3r · 1789658668 · focus · HN ↗
    I am not defending this morally, but these are clearly a group of the least competent stewards of the military in a long while. They were "completely clear on OPSEC", with a left-leaning Atlantic reporter in the signal group chat. This bombing also coalesced support in Iran and had a big rally around the flag effect. Data in Iran is hard and the timetable was extremely fast, again, due to incompetence and the inability to constrain a vassal. So its appalling to say, but a bunch of morons with LLMS and outdated targeting, pushed to meet the objectives of corrupt idiots is almost certainly the cause. I personally consider it a war crime, but I am not sure if it meets the legal definition.
    jvanderbot · 1789659440 · focus · HN ↗
    What is there to take seriously regarding this strike other than the facts as presented?
    There were 900 strikes in 12h, and only one target involved a strike on a school, and huge coincidence that target was a dozen meters from a military compound and was in fact part of that military compound not long ago.
    It's quite easy to accept that this was a horrific mistake. Whether you agree with the idea of striking Iran at all is up to you, but once they "went hot", precision strikes on military targets were successful in 900 cases, and it's plausible that one precision strike was issued incorrectly.
    It doesn't bring back the kiddos. It also doesn't mean it's a war crime. It's right to be angry about that strike or even the larger war if you oppose it, but spurious legal justifications for outrage aren't required - it can be wrong even when legally justified or plausibly just a mistake.
    albatross79 · 1789662951 · focus · HN ↗
    "the kiddos"
    jvanderbot · 1789666456 · focus · HN ↗
    I have no idea why this is in scare quotes. It's a term of endearment, and I'm saddened by their deaths as much as anyone.
    albatross79 · 1789668520 · focus · HN ↗
    Dozens of innocent children were destroyed in a heinous crime. Like they were nothing. They were cherished and loved by their families. It will be a scarring tragedy in all their lives. And some guy is like 'ah, darn, poor kiddos!'
    kyboren · 1789674794 · focus · HN ↗
    Welcome to war. War is bad. Innocent people always get caught up in war and suffer from it. We should do our best to avoid war. But, unfortunately, due to a mix of game theoretical incentives, information asymmetry, and human nature, war isn't going away. We can still at least try to minimize innocents' suffering from war, though.
    It was clearly a tragedy. Very few Americans--certainly I've never met one--support that strike in retrospect. Instead they are angry that such a terrible mistake was possible and they generally want a thorough investigation and targeting procedure reforms to make sure it doesn't happen again.
    Americans hold their military to a high moral standard. But wars don't have to be fought so cleanly. Certainly the Golden Horde had no compunction about genocide. If acknowledging our shared humanity with innocent victims and expressing remorse for their deaths is ridiculed, then we're primed for a descent into nihilism, wanton cruelty, and mass slaughter.
    EDIT: @Hikikomori, I cannot reply to your post, but I am happy to engage if you follow HN guidelines: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument
    > Please don't post shallow dismissals
    Hikikomori · 1789675856 · focus · HN ↗
    Didn't know it was HN comedy week.
    albatross79 · 1789735992 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, ridicule is the real crime here.
    jvanderbot · 1789678260 · focus · HN ↗
    That's true. It should never have happened. It was also quite possibly an accidental strike caused by outdated intel, even if the strikes were arguably part of unnecessary hostilities.
    But nothing anywhere in any of these increasingly pathological threads do I see evidence of a war crime. Tragedy yes, intentional crime, no. Preventable yes, cold blooded intentional child murder no.
    laimewhisps · 1789691785 · focus · HN ↗
    This is a war crime. A school full of children were murdered. It doesn’t matter what justification is presented. If you kill an entire school full of children, “whoopsie!” isn’t a valid legal defense.
    IOT_Apprentice · 1789676979 · focus · HN ↗
    No you aren’t. Your repeated comments show otherwise. You have trivialized their deaths, ignored other findings and demonstrated a distinct lack of empathy. Do better.
    [deleted] · 1789670280 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    mahboi · 1789667447 · focus · HN ↗
    Every military strike is extrajudicial, question is if they hit a legitimate target.
    pphysch · 1789672280 · focus · HN ↗
    What was "military" about those motorboats? You're suggesting the same military has vision into dozens of little boat's barrel contents but can't see hundreds of children in a school yard?
    mahboi · 1789673414 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't know, I didn't see how they selected the target
  2. [deleted] · 1789658562 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  3. text0404 · 1789661036 · focus · HN ↗
    TFA addresses this. It doesn't matter if it was a "mistake": the US acted recklessly "[amounting] to more than mere negligence," even when warned by their own commanders. Ignorance doesn't excuse crimes.
    > The UN mission concluded that the strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school constituted an indiscriminate attack causing civilian deaths and damage to civilian infrastructure, amounting to a war crime under international law.
    > According to the report, the US relied on intelligence suggesting a senior Iranian military commander was present at the site but failed to adequately verify the information before launching the strike.
    > Investigators said the failure to update targeting intelligence and confirm the building was a military objective amounted to more than mere negligence.
    > “Rather, the US directed the strikes at the building of the school while being aware of a substantial risk of striking a civilian object and acting recklessly as regards the possibility that this would happen.”
    jvanderbot · 1789666891 · focus · HN ↗
    The NYT - never a fan of trump - did an excellent analysis on this.
    <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/11/us/politics/iran-school-missile-strike.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/11/us/politics/iran-school-m...
    text0404 · 1789668168 · focus · HN ↗
    That article from March doesn't refute what the UN stated in its report today:
    > The UN mission concluded that the strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school constituted an indiscriminate attack causing civilian deaths and damage to civilian infrastructure, amounting to a war crime under international law.
    Again, because this was preventable and the US acted recklessly and without regard for civilians ("indiscriminate"), going so far as to ignore the warnings of its own commanders.
    jvanderbot · 1789668618 · focus · HN ↗
    Right, your position is defensible. I just think mine is too. I think that "indiscriminate" requires
    Unless otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court only if the material elements are committed with intent and knowledge. A mistake of fact shall be a ground for excluding criminal responsibility only if it negates the mental element required by the crime.
    ... (rome statute on it), meaning that they had to know that civilians were there or that their actions would cause undue risk of civilian deaths. That's more than just "maybe".
    It's something worth arguing about, but I dont think it's open-and-shut.
    andriy_koval · 1789673493 · focus · HN ↗
    > The UN mission concluded
    why "The UN mission" conclusions are blindly considered as some high quality analytics?
    IOT_Apprentice · 1789676731 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    andriy_koval · 1789676961 · focus · HN ↗
    Why instead of answering specific question you switch on explicit personal insults?
    text0404 · 1789678408 · focus · HN ↗
    Because the human rights chief has a lifetime of experience and credentials to be able to make these determinations [1], whereas Hegseth and Trump do not. Furthermore, Hegseth has stated repeatedly that the US military should ignore rules of engagement (and has worked to strip legal oversight from the military), which lends credence to the findings of the UN investigation that the US acted recklessly and without regard to civilians in violation of international humanitarian law [2][3].
    [1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volker_T%C3%BCrk" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volker_T%C3%BCrk
    [2] US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth commented at a news conference on March 2, 2026, about “stupid rules of engagement,” suggesting that they may interfere with “fight[ing] to win.” These remarks are concerning in light of Hegseth’s actions in the past year that have weakened US military posts and mechanisms intended to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war. - <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/02/us-defense-secretarys-media-remarks-on-rules-of-engagement" rel="nofollow">https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/02/us-defense-secretarys-me...
    [3] "We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters." - <a href="https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318689/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-addresses-general-and-flag-officers-at-quantico-v/" rel="nofollow">https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318...
    andriy_koval · 1789678817 · focus · HN ↗
    > has a lifetime of experience and credentials to be able to make these determinations [1]
    This sounds like extreme hand-waving to me.
    text0404 · 1789680160 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to refute the substance of what I've said.
    andriy_koval · 1789680410 · focus · HN ↗
    burden of proof is on one making statement, especially if he is passively-aggressively toxic.
    Productive discussion would be if you go read that report before bringing it here, and tell what material evidence they have for that specific incident?
    US picked some target through some classified protocol, what evidence states that there was some reckless in process?
    text0404 · 1789682135 · focus · HN ↗
    We're discussing the article that summarizes the report's findings, but sure.
    Please refer to the report [1] and read the following sections (they are too long to paste here):
    - II (full section)
    - IV.B.1 (full section)
    - IV.B.2.88-89
    - IV.B.2.95-96
    - V.B (full section)
    The report itself attributes its sources. If that's not enough, the DoD's own preliminary investigation produced the outdated-targeting finding. Pre-strike imagery of the school is public.
    [1] <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session63/advance-versions/a-hrc-63-61-auv-ffmi.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...
    andriy_koval · 1789682337 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    text0404 · 1789683224 · focus · HN ↗
    This has to be a troll. You're literally replying in a comment thread where I've already summarized the material findings that you're asking for (it's from the article we're discussing). I then pasted links to the raw text of the report that support the summary but you refuse to read it, asking me again for a summary which I already posted? I've provided everything you've asked for; do you actually have a point or are you just trying to start a flamewar?
    andriy_koval · 1789683490 · focus · HN ↗
    > I've already summarized the material findings
    I asked about material evidence(I mentioned word "evidence" multiple times), not "findings", which is loaded term
    text0404 · 1789683763 · focus · HN ↗
    That evidence is once again in the report which I linked and the statements of the DoD and Hegseth himself. If you want aerial imagery or the full text of the interviews, you'll have to obtain it yourself because it wasn't included in the advance version of the report.
    I have a question for you: how do you know the moon is not made of cheese? What evidence do you have?
    andriy_koval · 1789683930 · focus · HN ↗
    > the interviews
    those interviews are opinions not evidence, to my knowledge there was no public statements of anyone directly involved into the target selection process in that case
    text0404 · 1789684395 · focus · HN ↗
    There doesn't need to be an admission of guilt to determine that the US acted in violation of international law. If you'd like to learn more about the methodology, feel free to read the article or the report.
    andriy_koval · 1789684710 · focus · HN ↗
    > There doesn't need to be an admission of guilt to determine that the US acted in violation of international law.
    Its not about admission of guilt, but as I said multiple time about material evidence, which is missing in this case.
    text0404 · 1789684798 · focus · HN ↗
    No it isn't, you just refuse to read the report or any of the other links I've posted.
    They have a word for what you're doing: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
    subscribed · 1789683461 · focus · HN ↗
    So who's the better source then? Israeli military intelligence? Kremlin?
    andriy_koval · 1789683590 · focus · HN ↗
    Or there is no reliable source. We know that we don't know.
    laimewhisps · 1789691511 · focus · HN ↗
    The NYT may not like Trump but they love killing Muslims in the Middle East. They have many Zionist connections.
  4. orwin · 1789662537 · focus · HN ↗
    The double tap to me is really what is cruel. I understand americans don't want to hear it, because they need to believe their military is moral, but a double tap to me show cruelty and willingness to target doctor, nurses, firemen and any person courageous enough to help.
    The US military and its sailors already showed me everything i wont to know about them when i saw the report on them shooting torpedoes at capsized boats.
    jvanderbot · 1789667106 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    mahboi · 1789668026 · focus · HN ↗
    Is there some other purpose of a double tap besides killing first responders? Maybe to hit underground targets, or the second hit was unintentional?
    jvanderbot · 1789672388 · focus · HN ↗
    reverse question: Why does everyone assume that only one missile is justified per target? I think this line of reasoning came out of the "double tap" strikes used in Gaza where a five to 30m wait allowed a crowd to gather.
    What was the time between hits in this case?
    mahboi · 1789672911 · focus · HN ↗
    Because the first missile kills the intended targets. So the second one is implied to be for whoever comes to pick up the bodies.
    AnimalMuppet · 1789674187 · focus · HN ↗
    Does the first missile kill the targets? Do the launchers know, for sure, before they launch the second?
    Or are they launching two for redundancy, like often happens in military situations? Planes and missiles can break down or get shot down. If you want the target destroyed, you send more than one.
    mahboi · 1789675365 · focus · HN ↗
    Actually, I agree about the timing if you're right that it was minutes apart (which I haven't confirmed). Hate to say it this way, but they did kill the initial targets, not first responders. The targets were school children maybe negligently flagged as military, but that's separate from the double-tap strategy itself.
    It is different when they wait longer, which you mentioned was happening in Gaza. IDF waited for paramedics to arrive before striking again.
    jvanderbot · 1789676490 · focus · HN ↗
    That is the colloquial definition of a double tap.
    That is not automatically the case whenever two missiles strike a target.
    The "follow up" hit requires a delay. The delay is not accidental - you want to give time for a crowd to gather.
    All targets in the area received >= 1 missile, and all somewhat close together, from the NYT analysis.
    culi · 1789680720 · focus · HN ↗
    Well that's exactly what happened. US hit the building and many died. All the surviving students and teachers rushed to a prayer hall for protection but almost exactly 40 minutes later US airplanes (not surface missiles) hit the building again.
    All of these facts are outlined in US' own internal investigation and in the UN's fact-finding mission.
    culi · 1789680619 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not missiles. US' own investigations show it was hit by aircraft
    echoangle · 1789688911 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s not a contradiction, since missiles are one of the weapon types carried by aircraft. Unless you mean it was literally hit by aircraft in a sense that aircraft were flown into the building.
    mahboi · 1789761256 · focus · HN ↗
    I thought that meant the aircraft flew into it
    culi · 1789680598 · focus · HN ↗
    The first strike heavily damaged the building. Teachers and surviving students rushed to a prayer hall for protection but about 40 minutes after the first strike, a US airstrike hit again and killed all survivors.
    A double-tap strike is often legal basis for war crimes already as the primary purpose is to hit first responders and avoid any survivors being saved.
    laimewhisps · 1789691396 · focus · HN ↗
    There should be zero bombs falling on schools.
    unrented7977 · 1789671504 · focus · HN ↗
    The intent is to kill doctors, firefighters, first responders. In pretty much all situations this is considered an atrocity, morally repugnant, evil, etc.
    These are civillians putting themselves in danger for the express purpose of helping other civilians. I shouldn't have to explain that killing civilians is a bad thing.
    jvanderbot · 1789672273 · focus · HN ↗
    From the videos, the missiles struck relatively quickly - what kind of duration between strikes counts as double tap?
    rangerelf · 1789674752 · focus · HN ↗
    Are you really splitting hairs about this? Does it matter if it was 20 minutes and not 30? Does that exculpate them for bombing a school?
    I find your line of questions repugnant, in the sense that it would seem you're examining it from every angle possible to find one tiny weakness that could help you dismantle the simple fact that they bombed a school full of children.
    jvanderbot · 1789675977 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, the whole thing is based on armchair assessments to begin with.
    1) I dont think all the involved military leaders are such cartoon villians that they would intentionally strike a school full of kids
    2) I especially dont think they would do so with the intent of a follow up strike exclusively for killing the first responders to the atrocity from (1)
    Delivering two bombs to a military target doesn't seem unreasonable. The fact that two missiles struck the school is not evidence of (1) OR (2). If there were significant intentional delay, that would change my assessment. There doesn't seem to be, in this case.
    mrguyorama · 1789680417 · focus · HN ↗
    Hegseth said loud and clear that they wouldn't be a pussy ass weak ass bitch ass military anymore.
    What the hell do you think he meant by that? Because this is the exact thing he meant by that.
    Note that this kind of "Double tapping" was commonly done in strategic bombing in WW2! It's done because it's a very effective thing to do! Or at least, it usually is if you have an actual plan and strategy.
    laimewhisps · 1789691329 · focus · HN ↗
    These same people under both Biden and Trump murdered thousands of children and bombed many hospitals and schools. This act was insanely evil but the same thing had already been happening in Gaza for 2 1/2 years.
    [deleted] · 1789673766 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    senordevnyc · 1789667796 · focus · HN ↗
    Not torpedoes, but as a former enlisted member of the US Navy, most everything else here I agree with. Shameful.
    datsci_est_2015 · 1789682212 · focus · HN ↗
    Well the current leaders of the US Government have demonstrated that they believe that people of certain races, sexual orientations, and genders are less than human - and enthusiastically engage with other leaders who have similar beliefs. It’s because of this, along with their arrogance and incompetence, that I am personally not the least bit surprised that they have committed and will continue to commit war crimes.
    I guess the trick for me is (1) convincing others and (2) convincing others to give a shit.
  5. bigbadfeline · 1789685040 · focus · HN ↗
    > "intentionally targeted building that it knew was non-military and full of civilians"
    That formulation guarantees that most war crimes won't be revealed as such. The militaries of the world are operating under top secrecy about what they know, knew or plan on knowing, ditto for their intent. They can claim whatever they please without regard to actual reality, proof is impossible to obtain.
    Thus, under this formulation, war crimes are doubly guarded by the secrecy of two kinds of information available only to the perpetrators and protected by harsh laws again any leaks.
    Assange knows, he dealt with it but I doubt he or anyone else will try to break the secrecy again given the zeal of his prosecution. To think that what he revealed was an isolated case is laughable.
    cindyllm · 1789687664 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  6. laimewhisps · 1789691139 · focus · HN ↗
    The NYT is not credible here. Remember how they lied to manufacture consent to invade Iraq? This bombing was clearly intentional, just like the previous 3 years worth of war crimes committed by Israel/US.
    thomassmith65 · 1790075891 · focus · HN ↗
    The NYT seems pretty credible, considering how much its critics rely on 23 years old WMD coverage to criticise it.
  7. r721 · 1789731044 · focus · HN ↗
    >NYT did a great analysis essentially concluding it was plausibly a mistake, not an intentional or indiscriminate civilian attack.
    See also somewhat overlooked Bloomberg story from June:
    >An Analyst’s Missed Remark Surfaced in Deadly Iran School Strike Probe
    >An analyst's missed remarks and US intelligence systems that weren’t connected to one another are among the missteps that investigators have surfaced while probing the cause of a missile strike on an Iranian school that killed an estimated 120 children, people familiar with the matter said.
    >Years before the US attacked Iran at the end of February, an intelligence analyst examining information about potential future strike targets in Iran noticed changes at a site the US had previously characterized as a naval facility belonging to the elite wing of the Iranian military in Minab city in the southeast of the country. It was, in fact, now an elementary school.
    >The analyst remarked on changes at the site in a digital intelligence tool, but that tool wasn’t linked up to the official intelligence database that the US uses to develop strike targets and the information was never conveyed to military commanders, according to people familiar with the matter who declined to be named discussing sensitive matters.
    <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-06-26/an-analyst-s-missed-remark-surfaced-in-deadly-iran-school-strike-probe" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-06-26/an-analys...
    <a href="https://archive.is/LNMMf" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/LNMMf
  8. MrSkelter · 1790246992 · focus · HN ↗
    You elide the fact that the term “military target” has been stretched so far by countries like Israel that it’s meaningless in their hands.
    They now claim that any area with a sufficient large number of people they deem are “terrorists” is a legitimate target.
    They use that to “legitimately” target villages, hospitals and schools.
    These are crimes. The point of defining war crimes is to compel state not to take “opportunities” at the cost of innocent lives. It’s never okay.
    The irony of course being that Israel deeply embedded me military facilities in cities and civilian areas itself.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.