‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

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

354 points · 307 comments · hebelehubele

  1. Wildgoose · · 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 · · 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:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49739018#49741081">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49739018#49741081

      1. text0404 · · focus · HN ↗
        TFA addresses this. It doesn&#x27;t matter if it was a &quot;mistake&quot;: the US acted recklessly &quot;[amounting] to more than mere negligence,&quot; even when warned by their own commanders. Ignorance doesn&#x27;t excuse crimes.

        &gt; 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.

        &gt; 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.

        &gt; Investigators said the failure to update targeting intelligence and confirm the building was a military objective amounted to more than mere negligence.

        &gt; “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.”

        1. jvanderbot · · focus · HN ↗
          The NYT - never a fan of trump - did an excellent analysis on this.

          <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;03&#x2F;11&#x2F;us&#x2F;politics&#x2F;iran-school-missile-strike.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2026&#x2F;03&#x2F;11&#x2F;us&#x2F;politics&#x2F;iran-school-m...

          1. text0404 · · focus · HN ↗
            That article from March doesn&#x27;t refute what the UN stated in its report today:

            &gt; 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 (&quot;indiscriminate&quot;), going so far as to ignore the warnings of its own commanders.

            1. andriy_koval · · focus · HN ↗
              &gt; The UN mission concluded

              why &quot;The UN mission&quot; conclusions are blindly considered as some high quality analytics?

              1. IOT_Apprentice · · focus · HN ↗

                [dead]

                1. andriy_koval · · focus · HN ↗
                  Why instead of answering specific question you switch on explicit personal insults?
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.