4 ms·

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. Furth

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 10d 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 10d ago
  I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to refute the substance of what I've said.
  - andriy_koval 10d 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 10d 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 10d 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)?
        text0404 10d ago
        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 10d 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 10d ago
I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to refute the substance of what I've said.
- andriy_koval 10d 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 10d 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 10d 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)?
      - text0404 10d ago
        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?