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. 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]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.