I used to attend elementary school on a military base. I didn't feel like a human shield at the time, then again I was more naive and had less life experience than I do now.

▲

tw04 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You weren’t a human shield. It would have been very easy for the US and Israel to not have blown up a school, the attack was intentional.

Notice they had 0 issues precisely striking the building housing Iranian leadership when this whole thing started. They didn’t “accidentally” hit the grocery store two blocks away.

▲

ALittleLight 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For what reason would they attack a single school? Some strikes being well some doesn't mean others can't be mistaken.

▲

oa335 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Some Israeli’s believe that they should kill the children of their enemies:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netany...

“Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Maybe an extremist Israeli put together that particular target list?

▲

ra 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Same reason they're attacking universities, medical research labs, power stations, bridges, hospitals, paramedic teams, civilian rescue teams...

▲

user34283 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

It is amazing how readily some people believe we target civilians, often based on the words of actual terrorists.

With this particular incident with apparent US strikes on a school adjacent to a military complex, and formerly part of that military complex, you would think it must be obvious to any reasonable person that we did not knowingly target a school.

Yet here we are.

	▲	ra 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[delayed]

▲

subroutine 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

From the Wikipedia article...

For planning Operation Epic Fury, the US military utilized the Maven Smart System, an artificial intelligence software designed to streamline the targeting process and greatly reduce the amount of personnel involved in it. Capable of producing 1,000 target packages in one hour, with the use of the system the US military said it had struck 6,000 targets in Iran during the first two weeks of the war.

...it goes on to say...

The [NYT] inquiry suggested that the school was likely targeted due to outdated coordinates provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency

Advanced rockets bolted onto mainframes guided by data from Palantir.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven#Technology

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

selcuka 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> For what reason would they attack a single school?

Couldn't it be to terrorise the other side while still being able to claim that it was a mistake? Remember that the school was hit by three distinct strikes.

▲

wisty 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So you think there was a conspiracy to target a school? Who do you think did it? Why? What was their goal?

I think either an intelligence failure, or a mistake or a miss is more likely. Maybe missiles don't always hit where they were meant to go. Especially if there is anti missile defences (which Iran is likely to have). Maybe Iran anti-air hit the school, or sent a US missile off course?

	▲	vincnetas 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		article mentions that this was triple tap. i doubt that missiles missed three times hitting same spot.
	▲	ra 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		More than a conspiracy, they actually did attack the school - twice - about 30 minute apart (double tap). They would have had live video feed from drones, and images sent from the first tomahawk missile for target confirmation. Yhey knew exactly what they were targeting and hitting.

▲

karim79 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm...not seeing how the comment you're responding to "blames the victims."

▲

karim79 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"The Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school in southern Minab was attended by both boys and girls, taught on separate floors.[9] According to locals, the school was previously a military facility.[10] Its location was near[c] the Sayyid al-Shuhada military complex which included the headquarters of the Asif Brigade of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN).[13] As of early 2026, the school had existed as a civilian institution more than 10 years, close to but separate from the IRGCN compound."The Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school in southern Minab was attended by both boys and girls, taught on separate floors.[9] According to locals, the school was previously a military facility.[10] Its location was near[c] the Sayyid al-Shuhada military complex which included the headquarters of the Asif Brigade of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN).[13] As of early 2026, the school had existed as a civilian institution more than 10 years, close to but separate from the IRGCN compound.

For more than ten years. That's Palantir caching for you.

▲

throwaway290 7 hours ago | parent [-]

military bases are targets. I don't know how you jump from that to victim blaming like little kids had a say in where to build a school or where to go to school or whether to shoot rockets. it's a tragedy.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> military bases are targets Sure. But when they're next to schools, you try to avoid the school or school hours. Not doing that isn't just mean, it's strategically self defeating.

▲

InexSquirrel 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah I'm not following what they mean there.

▲

trhway 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Today on several news media were a story that people of Iran were called by the government and formed human shields at the bridges and power plants that Trump threatened to bomb if no deal reached by the deadline.

https://www.ms.now/news/iran-youths-protect-power-plants-sau...

Sounds like a blatant violation of all the conventions and a war crime.

▲

amluto 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s hard to imagine that international law actually intends to consider civilians hanging out as “human shields” at civilian sites to be a war crime.

▲

gpm 6 hours ago | parent [-]

No it's not. International law is generally exceptionally clear that one war crime doesn't justify another, and using civilians as human shields is about as core a war-crime as war-crimes get.

▲

amluto 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I tried to look it up: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97#ti...

> The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.

The situation in Iran is not this. The suggestion was that humans might volunteer to go to non-military sites.

As an extreme hypothetical, are humans living in their homes acting as human shields for those homes? How about people at school? How about people parading on a bridge? Does it become different if someone threatens to blow up a bridge and people parade there in response?

	▲	gpm 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Eh, the quoted text, and also the literal text of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 28 [1], doesn't qualify "certain points or areas" as only "military sites". While the other side should only be attacking military sites I don't see how that could possibly justify protecting non-military sites with human shields. > As an extreme hypothetical, are humans living in their homes acting as human shields for those homes? How about people at school? How about people parading on a bridge? Generally speaking I read this as not, because they aren't being "used to" render those points immune from attack, they just happen to be doing so. Hypothetically if you were to rush civilians back to their homes in an evacuated town to protect it from an attack - or as you suggest organize parades on bridges that are threatened - that would seem to meet the "used to" requirement. (Good discussion though) [1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art... > Article 28 - Prohibition of using human shields > The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

▲

oa335 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

https://youtu.be/u7J3_EX7rQk

I think this was done voluntarily as a demonstration of sacrifice and nationalism.

▲

vincnetas 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

When Lithuania was fighting for independence from USSR civilians gathered around key government buildings to protect them. in a sense they were human shields as none of them were armed. but they did it voluntarily. this happens when you threaten total annihilation of your homeland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events

▲

oa335 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Threatening total annihilation was possibly the dumbest move Trump could have made.

“ Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in the heart of a hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard."

Sun Tzu

▲

trhway 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

These civilians did this without government coercion. Big difference.

▲

vincnetas 5 hours ago | parent [-]

how do you know that iranians are forced to do this now by their government and not doing this in support of their country? do you think there are gunmen taking them to the bridges?

▲

trhway 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It was a government call. I grew up in USSR and know very well how those government "calls to volunteer" work in totalitarian regimes. Especially in a wartime country where even in peacetime they would kill people even just for being incorrectly dressed.

Anyway, as i said in the other comment, it is actually not that important how all those people got there. The key thing here is that it was a deliberate government act of human shield creation.

	▲	vincnetas 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		what a coincidence i too grew up in USSR and my parents and friends were part of above mentioned human shield. And i can tell first hand that there was no coercion. just call to action.

▲

trhway 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It said it was call of the government. Bloody authocratic government. A call you can’t refuse.

▲

oa335 6 hours ago | parent [-]

That’s certainly not the vibe I got from that video, nor the several others I’ve seen of Iranis at power plants and bridges.

	▲	trhway 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Look at recordings from other totalitarian regimes - enthusiastic people doing government bidding. The key is deliberate act of human shield creation, not the specific way to do it.