Comment by 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...

21 comments

jvanderbot

Reply
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.

  • andriy_koval  5 days ago

    > The UN mission concluded

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

    • text0404  5 days 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

      [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-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/4318...

      12 replies →

laimewhisps  5 days ago

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