| ▲ | boesboes 3 days ago |
| That was never a question right? |
|
| ▲ | jvanderbot 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Colloquially, I think it is well accepted that US launched the missiles. The question is whether they indiscriminately targeted civilians. NYT did an excellent analysis showing that the US probably did intentionally target the building, believing it to be part of the nearby compound that received several direct strikes. This analysis is really good [1] The definition of war crime is not "Killed civilians" it is "targeted civilians" or "reckless indiscriminate attacks". My understanding of the NYT analysis is that this was very plausibly misunderstood to still be part of the iran national guard compound. Everyone gets their own opinion on this. There were 900 or so strikes in the first 12h, and only one school hit, and that school was actually part of the compound before. A horrific accident that was brought on by unnecessary hostilities, i think. 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/11/us/politics/iran-school-m... |
| |
| ▲ | jvanderbot 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'll add the definition from the Rome statute that, by my read, establishes a war crime when there is intent to commit the civilian strikes: 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.
Still this is a legal defense that might plausibly be used during a trial, not necessarily a reason to skip a trial. | | |
| ▲ | toast0 2 days ago | parent [-] | | From that text, it sure sounds to me that these attacks are going to be legal. The article describes them as 'indescriminate', but they were specifically targetted based on a mistake of fact. There's certainly evidence that the US was neglegent in relying on old information without verifying. That's serious and reprehensible, but I don't know that that rises to the level of a war crime. I'll add that it's not what I want my country's military to be doing and that if I had any power, there would be consequences for the people involved in decision making that led to this, as well as changes in procedure to reduce this type of mistake in the future, and a settlement paid to the people affected by this strike. |
| |
| ▲ | paulddraper 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To recap: A Iranian military structure was converted into a school. After conversion, the rest of the naval base remained there (< 100m away). Missile strikes hit both the base and the adjacent school. --- FYI, it's not unusual for schools to be part of military bases. The U.S. itself operates over a 100. [1] [1] https://www.dodea.edu/ | | |
| ▲ | alistairSH 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 11 years ago. If we're operating on decade+ old info, that's pretty damning. Is there a "reckless endangerment" or "manslaughter" equivalent in the war-crimes sphere? | | |
| ▲ | bamboozled 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Is it me or is it reckless to leave a school in part of an old military complex ? That seems negligent to me, for this exact reason. Maybe it was intentional too ? | | |
| ▲ | alistairSH 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Under that logic, is the entire Barracks Row strip in DC fair game? It's across the street from a historic Marine Corp barracks, why would anybody put shops and restaurants there, right? Maybe if the schools was built recently there'd be a case. That's not the case, its as converted a full decade ago. We just didn't bother updating our maps and intel before launching missiles. | | |
| ▲ | bamboozled 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In my opinion, a more responsible government would probably not continue to using an abandon military base as a school for this reason. I'm sure the thought had crossed someone's mind that something like this might happen. I'm not trying to make excuses for the USA here, it's an abhorrent thing and I do agree, much more care should've been taken. No one is suggesting other kids schools are "fair game" so just calm down a bit? | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > a more responsible government would probably not continue to using an abandon military base as a school. The UK, the US, Germany, et al are therefore not "responsible government" ? Iran is an old country, leaving aside the assorted historical and urban settlements dating back to some 7,000 years before present time, the Median and Achaemenid Empires there data back to ~ 600 BC. A lot of buildings and places have prior history. | | |
| ▲ | bamboozled 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The age of the country has nothing to do with a 10 year old conversion by, let's a face it a murderous thug regime who kills its own citizens for not wearing Burqa's, who are you kidding? It wouldn't put it past me if the IRGC steered the USA towards the school for this to happen, that's the kind of people they actually are. They kill protestors, why wouldn't they kill a school full of kids, what's the difference to them? | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Age of a country has everything to do with it, even Australia a young country with vast open spaces is repurposing former (WWI -> near present) military sites in urban areas. Iran with 7,000 years of history can't really leave unused sites idle - and everywhere there has history. > It wouldn't put it past me if the IRGC steered the USA towards the school for this to happen, that's the kind of people they actually are. Uh-huh. Okay. That's quite the long con child sacrifice conspiracy theory you're projecting there to cover up for what's more likely to be general incompetence caused by a rushed strike order in the context of a POTUS with no plan. | | |
| ▲ | bamboozled a day ago | parent [-] | | I will reiterate, a government who is fine killing woman for not wear head scarfs is just as capable of such an atrocity. Not sure why you're such an IRGC apologist but do it somewhere else? |
| |
| ▲ | alistairSH 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You do realize the US qualifies as a murderous thug regime by many measurements. We're actively waging war against Iran for no discernible reason, we're blowing up boats in the Caribbean with zero proof they're drug boats, and we have masked thugs pulling residents off and shipping them to 3rd world nations with zero legal recourse. Just because Iran has a fucked government (that we helped install, by the way) doesn't let us off the hook or justify stooping to their level. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | fuzzfactor 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Now that you mention it, I did go to school in the US for years at a military base that was abandoned after the Cuban missile crisis had died down. We still continued to have Civil Defense drills in case of nuclear attack. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think the dishonesty is that if the tables were turned, the overwhelming chorus would be "Why the fuck would you convert former soldier barracks, still located on an active base, to a kids school and never update the publicly available maps? How fucking dumb are you?" |
| |
| ▲ | orwin 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. Like i said before, if any US person is on a boat and need help, i will still do it, because anybody not helping on the sea is an inhuman piece of shit, but i will keep my distance. | | |
| ▲ | jvanderbot 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Do you resolve a difference between a double tap attack (one in which a delay is inserted to hit first responders) and just hitting the target twice in one salvo? What duration means "double tap" vs "ensure destruction of target". | | |
| ▲ | orwin a day ago | parent [-] | | To me, more than 20 minutes, less than a day. Which is what happened (40 minutes between the missiles and the bombs) |
|
| |
| ▲ | watwut 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | US army used to have unit responsible to unsure this dont happen. Guess who dismantled it due to being too woke and not lethal enough. | |
| ▲ | superxpro12 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hegseth's military had woefully outdated intelligence. And because he's a news host and NOT a war chief, he ended up ordering the destruction of a school full of girls so they could distract the news from the epstein files. | | |
| ▲ | jvanderbot 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Your claim is that hegseth directed the US Navy to launch an attack on a building it knew to be a school full of kids for the negative headlines, because those negative headlines would distract from the Epstein files outrage? | | |
| ▲ | drstewart 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No no no, they didn't know that it was a school because they're incompetent, but ALSO knew it was as school because they're evil. | | |
| ▲ | text0404 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You seem to be confusing everyone's stances (incompetence vs malice). Some people in this thread believe it was incompetence and therefore not a war crime, and others believe it was malicious and therefore a war crime. I personally don't think stupidity is a good legal defense but what do I know. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | bragr 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Well the US government tried to deny it was a school at first, so that's put to bed at least. |
| |
| ▲ | hirvi74 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, if the map image I saw initially after the bombing was correct, then the facility did not used to be a school. The building had different, military purposes as it was attached to a military base, and later was converted into a school. My understanding is that the AI that was used to facilitate this attack was trained on maps where the building was still used for military purposes some years back. It absolutely does not excuse anything, but I suppose that might explain the denial at first. I cannot explain any further denial though. | | |
| ▲ | alistairSH 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Google says the building was converted 11 years ago. We waged an AI-directed attack based on decade+ maps. That should be criminal. |
| |
| ▲ | NorwegianDude 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US even said it was Iran who did it. The US has literally become the least trustworthy nation in the world by lying about everything, threatening to go to war against allies for no other reason than wanting the land... | | |
| ▲ | chrocni380 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | shimman 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If the only thing you care about is money, you truly have a sad existence of a life. | | |
| ▲ | chrocni380 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > If the only thing you care about is money, you truly have a sad existence of a life. You invest in European ETFs? o7 | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | paulddraper 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Overstated. It was never given as a fact. Was literally "in my opinion" speculation. A dumb opinion? Okay. But not statement of fact. | | |
| ▲ | Rooster61 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This has very little value when everything gets prefaced with "in my opinion". Government officials should be held to a higher standard when it comes to releasing these types of statements. | | |
| ▲ | rainworld 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Especially when the whole point of such lies is to kill the story before it gets much public interest. A device the sunny state of Israel uses all the time and to great effect. | |
| ▲ | paulddraper 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t commonly hear that. Just in the instance that was chosen. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | master_crab 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | shevy-java 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I remember that too. Initially they tried to go the "Iran caused this". Then the analysis quickly showed that it were US weapons. Suddenly the "Iran caused this" narrative disappeared. There are professional liars in media. Their job is to lie and obfuscate. | | |
| ▲ | tokai 3 days ago | parent [-] | | >the analysis quickly showed Wasn't the analysis a literal image with the Tomahawk caught mid air, clearly identifiable? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | saadn92 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They’d like us to believe otherwise (the administration) |
|
| ▲ | dgellow 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I mean, for the general public it was pretty clear the US was very likely to be at fault here. But for a UN report you generally expect a way higher level of evidence and standard for the analysis (in practice it’s not always the case though, some UN reports are sometimes fairly shallow, always good to skim through them and not rely only on the reporting if you want the nuanced story) |
|
| ▲ | shevy-java 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Trump claimed it was an accident. Then again he seems to be similar to Putin: both lie almost all of the time. Edit: Actually, others pointed out that at first the narrative was that Iran did it. That's indeed true that the media used that; perhaps one can even build up a timestamp of media reporting falseness here. I forgot which media reported the above lie first. |
|
| ▲ | runmanny 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
|
| ▲ | throwaway198846 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yes which is why this is an uninteresting thread |
