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. 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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.