5 ms·

That was never a question right?

by boesboes 17d ago

throwaway198846 17d ago
Yes which is why this is an uninteresting thread
bragr 17d ago
Well the US government tried to deny it was a school at first, so that's put to bed at least.
- master_crab 17d ago
  [flagged]
  - shevy-java 17d ago
    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 17d ago
      >the analysis quickly showed Wasn't the analysis a literal image with the Tomahawk caught mid air, clearly identifiable?
- NorwegianDude 17d ago
  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 17d ago
    [flagged]
    - shimman 17d ago
      If the only thing you care about is money, you truly have a sad existence of a life.
      - chrocni380 16d ago
        > If the only thing you care about is money, you truly have a sad existence of a life. You invest in European ETFs? o7
        shimman 16d ago
        Definitely not beating the rap with that comment LMAO.
  - paulddraper 17d ago
    Overstated. It was never given as a fact. Was literally "in my opinion" speculation. A dumb opinion? Okay. But not statement of fact.
    - Rooster61 17d ago
      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 17d ago
        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.
      - 16d ago
- hirvi74 17d ago
  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 17d ago
    Google says the building was converted 11 years ago. We waged an AI-directed attack based on decade+ maps. That should be criminal.
shevy-java 17d ago
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 17d ago
[flagged]
- chrocni380 17d ago
  [flagged]
  - phoghed 17d ago
    > Do you see Anthropic/OpenAI engineers defending against Meta/Google SWEs Yes, Dario is constantly whining about China
saadn92 17d ago
They’d like us to believe otherwise (the administration)
jvanderbot 17d ago
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-missile-strike.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/11/us/politics/iran-school-m...
- jvanderbot 17d ago
  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 17d ago
    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.
dgellow 17d ago
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)

That was never a question right?

throwaway198846 17d ago

Yes which is why this is an uninteresting thread

bragr 17d ago

Well the US government tried to deny it was a school at first, so that's put to bed at least.

master_crab 17d ago
[flagged]
- shevy-java 17d ago
  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 17d ago
    >the analysis quickly showed Wasn't the analysis a literal image with the Tomahawk caught mid air, clearly identifiable?
NorwegianDude 17d ago
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 17d ago
  [flagged]
  - shimman 17d ago
    If the only thing you care about is money, you truly have a sad existence of a life.
    - chrocni380 16d ago
      > If the only thing you care about is money, you truly have a sad existence of a life. You invest in European ETFs? o7
      - shimman 16d ago
        Definitely not beating the rap with that comment LMAO.
- paulddraper 17d ago
  Overstated. It was never given as a fact. Was literally "in my opinion" speculation. A dumb opinion? Okay. But not statement of fact.
  - Rooster61 17d ago
    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 17d ago
      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.
    - 16d ago
hirvi74 17d ago
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 17d ago
  Google says the building was converted 11 years ago. We waged an AI-directed attack based on decade+ maps. That should be criminal.

shevy-java 17d ago

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 17d ago

[flagged]

chrocni380 17d ago
[flagged]
- phoghed 17d ago
  > Do you see Anthropic/OpenAI engineers defending against Meta/Google SWEs Yes, Dario is constantly whining about China

saadn92 17d ago

They’d like us to believe otherwise (the administration)

jvanderbot 17d ago

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-missile-strike.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/11/us/politics/iran-school-m...

jvanderbot 17d ago
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 17d ago
  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.

dgellow 17d ago

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)