4 ms·

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 civil

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: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49739018#49741081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49739018#49741081

pphysch 9d ago
How can anyone take this argument seriously when the DoW was simultaneously committing dozens of extrajudicial executions of small boat users in the Gulf?
- mthoms 9d ago
  In all sincerity, people take it seriously because it helps them sleep at night.
- wand3r 9d ago
  I am not defending this morally, but these are clearly a group of the least competent stewards of the military in a long while. They were "completely clear on OPSEC", with a left-leaning Atlantic reporter in the signal group chat. This bombing also coalesced support in Iran and had a big rally around the flag effect. Data in Iran is hard and the timetable was extremely fast, again, due to incompetence and the inability to constrain a vassal. So its appalling to say, but a bunch of morons with LLMS and outdated targeting, pushed to meet the objectives of corrupt idiots is almost certainly the cause. I personally consider it a war crime, but I am not sure if it meets the legal definition.
- jvanderbot 9d ago
  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 9d ago
    "the kiddos"
    - jvanderbot 9d ago
      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 9d ago
        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!'
        kyboren 9d ago
        Welcome to war. War is bad. Innocent people always get caught up in war and suffer from it. We should do our best to avoid war. But, unfortunately, due to a mix of game theoretical incentives, information asymmetry, and human nature, war isn't going away. We can still at least try to minimize innocents' suffering from war, though. It was clearly a tragedy. Very few Americans--certainly I've never met one--support that strike in retrospect. Instead they are angry that such a terrible mistake was possible and they generally want a thorough investigation and targeting procedure reforms to make sure it doesn't happen again. Americans hold their military to a high moral standard. But wars don't have to be fought so cleanly. Certainly the Golden Horde had no compunction about genocide. If acknowledging our shared humanity with innocent victims and expressing remorse for their deaths is ridiculed, then we're primed for a descent into nihilism, wanton cruelty, and mass slaughter. EDIT: @Hikikomori, I cannot reply to your post, but I am happy to engage if you follow HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument > Please don't post shallow dismissals
        9d ago
- mahboi 9d ago
  Every military strike is extrajudicial, question is if they hit a legitimate target.
  - pphysch 9d ago
    What was "military" about those motorboats? You're suggesting the same military has vision into dozens of little boat's barrel contents but can't see hundreds of children in a school yard?
    - mahboi 9d ago
      I don't know, I didn't see how they selected the target
deleted 9d ago
[deleted]
text0404 9d ago
TFA addresses this. It doesn't matter if it was a "mistake": the US acted recklessly "[amounting] to more than mere negligence," even when warned by their own commanders. Ignorance doesn't excuse crimes. > 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. > According to the report, the US relied on intelligence suggesting a senior Iranian military commander was present at the site but failed to adequately verify the information before launching the strike. > Investigators said the failure to update targeting intelligence and confirm the building was a military objective amounted to more than mere negligence. > “Rather, the US directed the strikes at the building of the school while being aware of a substantial risk of striking a civilian object and acting recklessly as regards the possibility that this would happen.”
- jvanderbot 9d ago
  The NYT - never a fan of trump - did an excellent analysis on this. 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...
  - text0404 9d ago
    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 9d ago
      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.
orwin 9d ago
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.
- jvanderbot 9d ago
  [flagged]
  - mahboi 9d ago
    Is there some other purpose of a double tap besides killing first responders? Maybe to hit underground targets, or the second hit was unintentional?
    - jvanderbot 9d ago
      reverse question: Why does everyone assume that only one missile is justified per target? I think this line of reasoning came out of the "double tap" strikes used in Gaza where a five to 30m wait allowed a crowd to gather. What was the time between hits in this case?
      - mahboi 9d ago
        Because the first missile kills the intended targets. So the second one is implied to be for whoever comes to pick up the bodies.
        AnimalMuppet 9d ago
        Does the first missile kill the targets? Do the launchers know, for sure, before they launch the second? Or are they launching two for redundancy, like often happens in military situations? Planes and missiles can break down or get shot down. If you want the target destroyed, you send more than one.
bigbadfeline 9d ago
> "intentionally targeted building that it knew was non-military and full of civilians" That formulation guarantees that most war crimes won't be revealed as such. The militaries of the world are operating under top secrecy about what they know, knew or plan on knowing, ditto for their intent. They can claim whatever they please without regard to actual reality, proof is impossible to obtain. Thus, under this formulation, war crimes are doubly guarded by the secrecy of two kinds of information available only to the perpetrators and protected by harsh laws again any leaks. Assange knows, he dealt with it but I doubt he or anyone else will try to break the secrecy again given the zeal of his prosecution. To think that what he revealed was an isolated case is laughable.
- cindyllm 9d ago
  [dead]
laimewhisps 9d ago
The NYT is not credible here. Remember how they lied to manufacture consent to invade Iraq? This bombing was clearly intentional, just like the previous 3 years worth of war crimes committed by Israel/US.
r721 8d ago
>NYT did a great analysis essentially concluding it was plausibly a mistake, not an intentional or indiscriminate civilian attack. See also somewhat overlooked Bloomberg story from June: >An Analyst’s Missed Remark Surfaced in Deadly Iran School Strike Probe >An analyst's missed remarks and US intelligence systems that weren’t connected to one another are among the missteps that investigators have surfaced while probing the cause of a missile strike on an Iranian school that killed an estimated 120 children, people familiar with the matter said. >Years before the US attacked Iran at the end of February, an intelligence analyst examining information about potential future strike targets in Iran noticed changes at a site the US had previously characterized as a naval facility belonging to the elite wing of the Iranian military in Minab city in the southeast of the country. It was, in fact, now an elementary school. >The analyst remarked on changes at the site in a digital intelligence tool, but that tool wasn’t linked up to the official intelligence database that the US uses to develop strike targets and the information was never conveyed to military commanders, according to people familiar with the matter who declined to be named discussing sensitive matters. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-06-26/an-analyst-s-missed-remark-surfaced-in-deadly-iran-school-strike-probe https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-06-26/an-analys... https://archive.is/LNMMf https://archive.is/LNMMf

pphysch 9d ago

How can anyone take this argument seriously when the DoW was simultaneously committing dozens of extrajudicial executions of small boat users in the Gulf?

mthoms 9d ago
In all sincerity, people take it seriously because it helps them sleep at night.
wand3r 9d ago
I am not defending this morally, but these are clearly a group of the least competent stewards of the military in a long while. They were "completely clear on OPSEC", with a left-leaning Atlantic reporter in the signal group chat. This bombing also coalesced support in Iran and had a big rally around the flag effect. Data in Iran is hard and the timetable was extremely fast, again, due to incompetence and the inability to constrain a vassal. So its appalling to say, but a bunch of morons with LLMS and outdated targeting, pushed to meet the objectives of corrupt idiots is almost certainly the cause. I personally consider it a war crime, but I am not sure if it meets the legal definition.
jvanderbot 9d ago
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 9d ago
  "the kiddos"
  - jvanderbot 9d ago
    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 9d ago
      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!'
      - kyboren 9d ago
        Welcome to war. War is bad. Innocent people always get caught up in war and suffer from it. We should do our best to avoid war. But, unfortunately, due to a mix of game theoretical incentives, information asymmetry, and human nature, war isn't going away. We can still at least try to minimize innocents' suffering from war, though. It was clearly a tragedy. Very few Americans--certainly I've never met one--support that strike in retrospect. Instead they are angry that such a terrible mistake was possible and they generally want a thorough investigation and targeting procedure reforms to make sure it doesn't happen again. Americans hold their military to a high moral standard. But wars don't have to be fought so cleanly. Certainly the Golden Horde had no compunction about genocide. If acknowledging our shared humanity with innocent victims and expressing remorse for their deaths is ridiculed, then we're primed for a descent into nihilism, wanton cruelty, and mass slaughter. EDIT: @Hikikomori, I cannot reply to your post, but I am happy to engage if you follow HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument > Please don't post shallow dismissals
        9d ago
mahboi 9d ago
Every military strike is extrajudicial, question is if they hit a legitimate target.
- pphysch 9d ago
  What was "military" about those motorboats? You're suggesting the same military has vision into dozens of little boat's barrel contents but can't see hundreds of children in a school yard?
  - mahboi 9d ago
    I don't know, I didn't see how they selected the target

deleted 9d ago

[deleted]

text0404 9d ago

TFA addresses this. It doesn't matter if it was a "mistake": the US acted recklessly "[amounting] to more than mere negligence," even when warned by their own commanders. Ignorance doesn't excuse crimes. > 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. > According to the report, the US relied on intelligence suggesting a senior Iranian military commander was present at the site but failed to adequately verify the information before launching the strike. > Investigators said the failure to update targeting intelligence and confirm the building was a military objective amounted to more than mere negligence. > “Rather, the US directed the strikes at the building of the school while being aware of a substantial risk of striking a civilian object and acting recklessly as regards the possibility that this would happen.”

jvanderbot 9d ago
The NYT - never a fan of trump - did an excellent analysis on this. 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...
- text0404 9d ago
  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 9d ago
    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.

orwin 9d ago

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.

jvanderbot 9d ago
[flagged]
- mahboi 9d ago
  Is there some other purpose of a double tap besides killing first responders? Maybe to hit underground targets, or the second hit was unintentional?
  - jvanderbot 9d ago
    reverse question: Why does everyone assume that only one missile is justified per target? I think this line of reasoning came out of the "double tap" strikes used in Gaza where a five to 30m wait allowed a crowd to gather. What was the time between hits in this case?
    - mahboi 9d ago
      Because the first missile kills the intended targets. So the second one is implied to be for whoever comes to pick up the bodies.
      - AnimalMuppet 9d ago
        Does the first missile kill the targets? Do the launchers know, for sure, before they launch the second? Or are they launching two for redundancy, like often happens in military situations? Planes and missiles can break down or get shot down. If you want the target destroyed, you send more than one.

bigbadfeline 9d ago

> "intentionally targeted building that it knew was non-military and full of civilians" That formulation guarantees that most war crimes won't be revealed as such. The militaries of the world are operating under top secrecy about what they know, knew or plan on knowing, ditto for their intent. They can claim whatever they please without regard to actual reality, proof is impossible to obtain. Thus, under this formulation, war crimes are doubly guarded by the secrecy of two kinds of information available only to the perpetrators and protected by harsh laws again any leaks. Assange knows, he dealt with it but I doubt he or anyone else will try to break the secrecy again given the zeal of his prosecution. To think that what he revealed was an isolated case is laughable.

cindyllm 9d ago
[dead]

laimewhisps 9d ago

The NYT is not credible here. Remember how they lied to manufacture consent to invade Iraq? This bombing was clearly intentional, just like the previous 3 years worth of war crimes committed by Israel/US.

r721 8d ago

>NYT did a great analysis essentially concluding it was plausibly a mistake, not an intentional or indiscriminate civilian attack. See also somewhat overlooked Bloomberg story from June: >An Analyst’s Missed Remark Surfaced in Deadly Iran School Strike Probe >An analyst's missed remarks and US intelligence systems that weren’t connected to one another are among the missteps that investigators have surfaced while probing the cause of a missile strike on an Iranian school that killed an estimated 120 children, people familiar with the matter said. >Years before the US attacked Iran at the end of February, an intelligence analyst examining information about potential future strike targets in Iran noticed changes at a site the US had previously characterized as a naval facility belonging to the elite wing of the Iranian military in Minab city in the southeast of the country. It was, in fact, now an elementary school. >The analyst remarked on changes at the site in a digital intelligence tool, but that tool wasn’t linked up to the official intelligence database that the US uses to develop strike targets and the information was never conveyed to military commanders, according to people familiar with the matter who declined to be named discussing sensitive matters. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-06-26/an-analyst-s-missed-remark-surfaced-in-deadly-iran-school-strike-probe https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-06-26/an-analys... https://archive.is/LNMMf https://archive.is/LNMMf