← Back to context

Comment by text0404

5 days 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.”

22 comments

text0404

Reply
jvanderbot  5 days 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-m...

  • text0404  5 days 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  5 days 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.

  • laimewhisps  5 days ago

    The NYT may not like Trump but they love killing Muslims in the Middle East. They have many Zionist connections.