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?
    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!'
    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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.