2 ms·

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 c

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 14d 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.
andriy_koval 14d ago
> The UN mission concluded why "The UN mission" conclusions are blindly considered as some high quality analytics?
- IOT_Apprentice 14d ago
  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 14d ago
    Why instead of answering specific question you switch on explicit personal insults?
- text0404 14d ago
  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 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-media-remarks-on-rules-of-engagement 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/4318689/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-addresses-general-and-flag-officers-at-quantico-v/ https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318...
  - andriy_koval 14d ago
    > has a lifetime of experience and credentials to be able to make these determinations [1] This sounds like extreme hand-waving to me.
    - text0404 14d ago
      I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to refute the substance of what I've said.
      - andriy_koval 14d ago
        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?
- subscribed 14d ago
  So who's the better source then? Israeli military intelligence? Kremlin?
  - andriy_koval 14d ago
    Or there is no reliable source. We know that we don't know.

jvanderbot 14d 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.

andriy_koval 14d ago

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

IOT_Apprentice 14d ago
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 14d ago
  Why instead of answering specific question you switch on explicit personal insults?
text0404 14d ago
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 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-media-remarks-on-rules-of-engagement 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/4318689/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-addresses-general-and-flag-officers-at-quantico-v/ https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318...
- andriy_koval 14d ago
  > has a lifetime of experience and credentials to be able to make these determinations [1] This sounds like extreme hand-waving to me.
  - text0404 14d ago
    I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to refute the substance of what I've said.
    - andriy_koval 14d ago
      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?
subscribed 14d ago
So who's the better source then? Israeli military intelligence? Kremlin?
- andriy_koval 14d ago
  Or there is no reliable source. We know that we don't know.