4 ms·

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

IOT_Apprentice 9d 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 9d ago
  Why instead of answering specific question you switch on explicit personal insults?
text0404 9d 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 9d 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 9d ago
    I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to refute the substance of what I've said.
    - andriy_koval 9d 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?
      - text0404 9d ago
        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/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session63/advance-versions/a-hrc-63-61-auv-ffmi.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...
        andriy_koval 9d ago
        So, you didn't read it yourself since can't summarize material findings in 3 sentences (what I asked instead of your "go read yourself" suggestions which are obviously to be ignored)?
subscribed 8d ago
So who's the better source then? Israeli military intelligence? Kremlin?
- andriy_koval 8d ago
  Or there is no reliable source. We know that we don't know.

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 9d ago
Why instead of answering specific question you switch on explicit personal insults?

text0404 9d 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 9d 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 9d ago
  I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to refute the substance of what I've said.
  - andriy_koval 9d 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?
    - text0404 9d ago
      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/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session63/advance-versions/a-hrc-63-61-auv-ffmi.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...
      - andriy_koval 9d ago
        So, you didn't read it yourself since can't summarize material findings in 3 sentences (what I asked instead of your "go read yourself" suggestions which are obviously to be ignored)?

subscribed 8d ago

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

andriy_koval 8d ago
Or there is no reliable source. We know that we don't know.