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 a day ago | parent | next [-]

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 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> The UN mission concluded

why "The UN mission" conclusions are blindly considered as some high quality analytics?

▲

text0404 a day ago | parent | next [-]

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] 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. - 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." - https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318...

▲

andriy_koval a day ago | parent [-]

> has a lifetime of experience and credentials to be able to make these determinations [1]

This sounds like extreme hand-waving to me.

▲

text0404 a day ago | parent [-]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to refute the substance of what I've said.

▲

andriy_koval a day ago | parent [-]

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 a day ago | parent [-]

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] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...

▲

andriy_koval a day ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

text0404 a day ago | parent [-]

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 a day ago | parent [-]

> 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 a day ago | parent [-]

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 a day ago | parent [-]

> 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 a day ago | parent [-]

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 a day ago | parent [-]

> 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 a day ago \| parent [-]
		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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

▲

subscribed a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So who's the better source then? Israeli military intelligence? Kremlin?

	▲	andriy_koval a day ago \| parent [-]
		Or there is no reliable source. We know that we don't know.

▲

IOT_Apprentice a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Are the schoolgirls dead, alongside some of their parents Anna teachers? Did Hegseath eliminate the review process pre stikes to determine if a site is civilian in nature, the CHMR? Yes they did. Ghouls like you have posted so much in this thread ignoring the actions to the point of cheerleading the mass murder of children. Where are the administrators like Dan G to bring you to heel?

	▲	andriy_koval a day ago \| parent [-]
		Why instead of answering specific question you switch on explicit personal insults?