US/Israel and Iran- (9 Viewers)

[efil4]

Thought we should start thread here - over weekend, US carried out strikes against Houthi elements in Yemen in retaliation for their actions in Red Sea.



Houthi leader issued this statement- no US ships in Red Sea


Houthis then attempted to strike US Carrier group

This morning Trump took to Truth Social:



So any missile/shot fired from Houthi elements in Yemen will be considered coming from Iran. Obviously this is wrought with problems, but we know Houthis will respond and continue attacks.

So then what does this mean for Iran? Lots to unpack, but seems to me that the NO WAR POTUS is hell bent on getting into yet ANOTHER conflict in the ME. He is backing himself into a corner with statements and we could find ourselves embroiled in ME conflict again.

 

[efil4]

Every article I’ve read has identified it as a Naval Base. A Naval Base doesn’t need to be on the water. A compound of buildings used by the Islamic Royal Guard Corp navy is a naval base.

Then you run with that.

None of which lessens the attack and the law of war proportionality principle.

 

[efil4]

So you’re willing to go to the mat on this pedantic aspect, but unwilling to comment on the strike itself in any meaningful way? Got it.

whatever deflects from the actual act, yes. He is.

 

[efil4]

meanwhile

 

[MT15]

This is pretty succinct. It was clearly - CLEARLY - an elementary school. It’s inexcusable. Even if the base was fully operational - which is arguable - it was largely a medical facility evidently and had no airfield. People justifying this grave loss of civilian life are showing their true selves.

 

[TampaJoe]

another one with little to no idea about how target packages work their way up thru chain of command ( from basic intel to approval )

Amazing - you have been off this thread for 2 weeks and NOW you show up.

and @superchuck500 posted a lengthy post about your very question.

I assume that there is a process and I assume there are controls around that process. So either someone intentionally targeted a bunch of kids or there was a breakdown in the process. So unless you know where and how that happened, you don’t know anymore than anyone else.

You add nothing.

 

[MT15]

You add nothing.

As opposed to your contributions,

At least he has some military experience and is trying to shed some light on things, including the targeting process.

Seriously - you hate almost everyone here. You’ve been trolling and posting nasty remarks to multiple people. Why not go somewhere else, where all your brilliant contributions will be appreciated?

That is sincere. It evidently aggravates you to be here. Life is too short to be upset all the time Joe.

 

[efil4]

I assume that there is a process and I assume there are controls around that process. So either someone intentionally targeted a bunch of kids or there was a breakdown in the process. So unless you know where and how that happened, you don’t know anymore than anyone else.

You add nothing.

lots of assumptions there.

and touche. back from your 2 week hiatus i see. Attempting to obfuscate your way thru this issue is totally on brand.


but do yourself a favor- google Law of War Proportionality Principle.

Get back to us.

 

[superchuck500]

If it was an error in targeting (which happens in battle) or an intelligence failure (which also happens), is it still a war crime in your view?

When battles are fought in populated errors, there are most always civilians killed. Sadly that is just a consequence of fighting wars in or around where people live.

I believe for it to be considered a war crime goes to an intent to kill civilians or non combatants or to maybe a “flagrant disregard”.

Just curious to see where you land on such things.

I think that when it comes to a precision-guided missile that uses GPS targeting to strike a specific target - a building in this case - the question becomes how that building was targeted. With increasingly reliable accuracy in weaponry comes the responsibility of reasonable target verification that is similarly sophisticated.

The Geneva Convention (Additional Protocols (I)) at Article 51 provides the fundamental rule that civilians shall not, in and of themselves, be a target in combat and that various action and principles must be applied to ensure that this is respected in military action. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual (June 2015, July 2023 Update) requires that US armed forces "In [the] planning and conducting attacks, decisions or determinations that a person or object is a military objective must be made in good faith based on the information available at the time, and those who plan or decide upon an attack must take feasible precautions to verify that the targets to be attacked are military objectives and not protected by the law of war from being made the object of attack."

https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF#page=240

I certainly do not take the view that any civilian casualty in war is a war crime - I fully recognize the reality of war, particularly where war fighting is being done in areas where civilians live. That would be an unreasonable, extreme position but I think that there is a standard in both the Geneva Convention and most certainly in the DOD Manual that (1) targeting of civilians is unacceptable, and (2) to achieve this end, targeting decisions made by military actors must be made on a good faith basis upon information available at the time - which I think means that a reasonable effort must be made that uses information that is reasonably available. And refusing to recognize what this standard means is also an unreasonable, extreme position on the opposite end.

So now go to this school strike by a US guided missile (which at this point is beyond a reasonable doubt) - where over 150 school children were killed and the photographic evidence shows that more than about 2/3 of the school was completely leveled. This was part of the first wave of strikes, which were carried out on a elective basis by the United States at the time of the United States' choosing. This was not a responsive strike in the heat of battle or fog of war.

There is no evidence or accusation by anyone that the building contained a military target. To the contrary, there is strong evidence that the building was intentionally placed outside of the walls of the nearby base since at least 2016, and was being used on daily basis as a school - with clear civilian vehicles coming and going. This has all been verified by publicly available satellite data and historical image sets.

Is there any explanation of how a precision (GPS) guided missile destroyed this structure and the 150+ school children in it that would be satisfactory under the targeting standards required by the Geneva Convention and the US DOD Manual? I don't think so. The information reasonably available was that this was a school in full civilian use and entirely separate, outside of the base's walls, for at least 10 years.

Like I said in the post above, presuming the target wasn't deliberate (and I have no basis to make that accusation though I'm sure many in the region believe it), it was gross negligence at best. You just can't allow that target to make the package when it's so obviously a school, not a military target and not even associated with the base . . . all information that has been publicly available for at least 10 years.

 

[MT15]

So they are apparently really moving some defensive hardware out of South Korea to the ME.

 

[superchuck500]

I think we also have to consider the possibility that the US Military is using tools for targeting that are not being properly vetted by staff. There was gloating by Hegseth about the number of targets struck in the opening attacks (> 1,000) and there was reporting by NYT, Wash Post, and others to verify that AI tools were being used for targeting.

We know that AI is inaccurate and prone even create ("hallucinate") allegedly objective information that simply doesn't exist. If AI tools were/are being used to identify targets that are then struck without independent human verification, I think that is also hugely problematic and war crime as defined by relevant standards.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthropic-ai-iran-campaign/

 

[efil4]

Like I said in the post above, presuming the target wasn't deliberate (and I have no basis to make that accusation though I'm sure many in the region believe it), it was gross negligence at best. You just can't allow that target to make the package when it's so obviously a school, not a military target and not even associated with the base . . . all information that has been publicly available for at least 10 years.

and to add - here is the Law of War Proportionality Principle-


Finally, we get to proportionality. The principle of proportionality recognizes that some civilian life and property will be destroyed during armed conflict. Proportionality excuses collateral damage to civilian property or incidental civilian death or injury that occurs during an attack on a valid military objective, as long as the collateral damage or incidental civilian death is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack.14 Thus, proportionality begins with identifying the valid military objective and identifying any collateral damage or incidental loss of life foreseeable from the attack. The commander then weighs the foreseeable collateral damage or incidental loss of life against the expected military advantage to determine whether the collateral damage or incidental loss of life is excessive. As long as the collateral damage and incidental loss of life is not excessive compared to the military advantage, then the attack does not violate the principle of proportionality.15 If there is no collateral damage, then proportionality has no effect on the size or type of weapons used against the enemy.

Assume, for example, that your unit locates a squad of Iraqis in the desert. Also assume that there are no civilians or civilian property anywhere in the area that could be harmed from attacking the Iraqi squad. There will be no proportionality issue present regardless of the size or combination of weapons delivered because there will be no civilian death or damage to civilian property. The commander is free to select and employ any weapon or combination of weapons he chooses, and he cannot violate the principle of proportionality. The commander may violate the principle of unnecessary suffering or other rules in the LOW, but not the principle of proportionality.

Proportionality in the Law of War - Marine Corps Association

Ever since Warfighting1 was published in 1989, the concept of maneuver warfare has defined and distinguished the way the Marine Corps fights. Maneuver warfare

www.mca-marines.org

here is a counter-argument to the LOW/LOAC Proportionality and how it can get "muddied" when determining

The Disproportionate Confusion About Proportionality - JINSA

Proportionality is a term commonly invoked to condemn infliction of civilian suffering during war. But just as pervasive is the misunderstanding of how it impacts both the authority to engage in hostilities, and the protection of civilians during hostilities. What… Read more ›

jinsa.org

 

[TampaJoe]

I think that when it comes to a precision-guided missile that uses GPS targeting to strike a specific target - a building in this case - the question becomes how that building was targeted. With increasingly reliable accuracy in weaponry comes the responsibility of reasonable target verification that is similarly sophisticated.

The Geneva Convention (Additional Protocols (I)) at Article 51 provides the fundamental rule that civilians shall not, in and of themselves, be a target in combat and that various action and principles must be applied to ensure that this is respected in military action. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual (June 2015, July 2023 Update) requires that US armed forces "In [the] planning and conducting attacks, decisions or determinations that a person or object is a military objective must be made in good faith based on the information available at the time, and those who plan or decide upon an attack must take feasible precautions to verify that the targets to be attacked are military objectives and not protected by the law of war from being made the object of attack."

https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF#page=240

I certainly do not take the view that any civilian casualty in war is a war crime - I fully recognize the reality of war, particularly where war fighting is being done in areas where civilians live. That would be an unreasonable, extreme position but I think that there is a standard in both the Geneva Convention and most certainly in the DOD Manual that (1) targeting of civilians is unacceptable, and (2) to achieve this end, targeting decisions made by military actors must be made on a good faith basis upon information available at the time - which I think means that a reasonable effort must be made that uses information that is reasonably available. And refusing to recognize what this standard means is also an unreasonable, extreme position on the opposite end.

So now go to this school strike by a US guided missile (which at this point is beyond a reasonable doubt) - where over 150 school children were killed and the photographic evidence shows that more than about 2/3 of the school was completely leveled. This was part of the first wave of strikes, which were carried out on a elective basis by the United States at the time of the United States' choosing. This was not a responsive strike in the heat of battle or fog of war.

There is no evidence or accusation by anyone that the building contained a military target. To the contrary, there is strong evidence that the building was intentionally placed outside of the walls of the nearby base since at least 2016, and was being used on daily basis as a school - with clear civilian vehicles coming and going. This has all been verified by publicly available satellite data and historical image sets.

Is there any explanation of how a precision (GPS) guided missile destroyed this structure and the 150+ school children in it that would be satisfactory under the targeting standards required by the Geneva Convention and the US DOD Manual? I don't think so. The information reasonably available was that this was a school in full civilian use and entirely separate, outside of the base's walls, for at least 10 years.

Like I said in the post above, presuming the target wasn't deliberate (and I have no basis to make that accusation though I'm sure many in the region believe it), it was gross negligence at best. You just can't allow that target to make the package when it's so obviously a school, not a military target and not even associated with the base . . . all information that has been publicly available for at least 10 years.

I agree with you. What I want to know and understand is where and how the process broke down. I don’t believe it was deliberate either. So the question is how did a school get targeted? I don’t question that it was a school or that it was US munitions. But somehow that school did in fact make it into the target package. Until we know where the process broke, it is hard to say whether it was reckless disregard or an error on the part of someone in the chain to update information on that building. Mistakes do happen. That is why processes and controls are put into place. So if something or someone failed, we need to understand how and why that happened in order to hold anyone accountable.

 

[efil4]

 

[efil4]

now its been reported as true-




So POTUS comes out to say " we have no reports" - yet multiple outlets report mines are/have been laid.

Sheesh.

 

[Sendai]

So you’re willing to go to the mat on this pedantic aspect, but unwilling to comment on the strike itself in any meaningful way? Got it.

My comment is improper or poor use of intelligence. I pretty much have pointed out we were responsible.

This wasn’t an error in targeting. That was a precision strike per everything reported thus far.

The school was said to be painted in bright colors with a mural and playground. From Al Jazeera:

Following the strike, visual evidence confirmed the following:

• Murals: The walls of the Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school were decorated with paintings of trees, crayons, paintbrushes, microscopes, and letters of the Persian alphabet.
• Playground: Remains of a playground, including a red plastic slide and child-sized chairs, were found scattered against a burned-out wall.
• School Setting: Images showed schoolbooks, bloodied backpacks, and children's pink plastic sandals in the debris.

It’s going to be very difficult to make the case this wasn’t extremely negligent at best. We have a Def Secretary bragging about loosening the rules of engagement at the same time this happened.

There needs to be an independent investigation. A thorough one.

I’d say poor intelligence is an error in targeting.

 

[Sendai]

I think that when it comes to a precision-guided missile that uses GPS targeting to strike a specific target - a building in this case - the question becomes how that building was targeted. With increasingly reliable accuracy in weaponry comes the responsibility of reasonable target verification that is similarly sophisticated.

The Geneva Convention (Additional Protocols (I)) at Article 51 provides the fundamental rule that civilians shall not, in and of themselves, be a target in combat and that various action and principles must be applied to ensure that this is respected in military action. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual (June 2015, July 2023 Update) requires that US armed forces "In [the] planning and conducting attacks, decisions or determinations that a person or object is a military objective must be made in good faith based on the information available at the time, and those who plan or decide upon an attack must take feasible precautions to verify that the targets to be attacked are military objectives and not protected by the law of war from being made the object of attack."

https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF#page=240

I certainly do not take the view that any civilian casualty in war is a war crime - I fully recognize the reality of war, particularly where war fighting is being done in areas where civilians live. That would be an unreasonable, extreme position but I think that there is a standard in both the Geneva Convention and most certainly in the DOD Manual that (1) targeting of civilians is unacceptable, and (2) to achieve this end, targeting decisions made by military actors must be made on a good faith basis upon information available at the time - which I think means that a reasonable effort must be made that uses information that is reasonably available. And refusing to recognize what this standard means is also an unreasonable, extreme position on the opposite end.

So now go to this school strike by a US guided missile (which at this point is beyond a reasonable doubt) - where over 150 school children were killed and the photographic evidence shows that more than about 2/3 of the school was completely leveled. This was part of the first wave of strikes, which were carried out on a elective basis by the United States at the time of the United States' choosing. This was not a responsive strike in the heat of battle or fog of war.

There is no evidence or accusation by anyone that the building contained a military target. To the contrary, there is strong evidence that the building was intentionally placed outside of the walls of the nearby base since at least 2016, and was being used on daily basis as a school - with clear civilian vehicles coming and going. This has all been verified by publicly available satellite data and historical image sets.

Is there any explanation of how a precision (GPS) guided missile destroyed this structure and the 150+ school children in it that would be satisfactory under the targeting standards required by the Geneva Convention and the US DOD Manual? I don't think so. The information reasonably available was that this was a school in full civilian use and entirely separate, outside of the base's walls, for at least 10 years.

Like I said in the post above, presuming the target wasn't deliberate (and I have no basis to make that accusation though I'm sure many in the region believe it), it was gross negligence at best. You just can't allow that target to make the package when it's so obviously a school, not a military target and not even associated with the base . . . all information that has been publicly available for at least 10 years.

Unfortunately, in this case the entire compound was targeted. And the entire compound was hit.

 

[superchuck500]

I agree with you. What I want to know and understand is where and how the process broke down. I don’t believe it was deliberate either. So the question is how did a school get targeted? I don’t question that it was a school or that it was US munitions. But somehow that school did in fact make it into the target package. Until we know where the process broke, it is hard to say whether it was reckless disregard or an error on the part of someone in the chain to update information on that building. Mistakes do happen. That is why processes and controls are put into place. So if something or someone failed, we need to understand how and why that happened in order to hold anyone accountable.

I agree - an investigation is needed.

But I also think we have to careful with the characterization of a sophisticated cruise missile with GPS guidance striking a civilian school (with kids in it) that has been in that posture for 13 years and separated by concrete walls from the base for at least 10 years to suggest that it can be something that happens - it can't happen. I think you agree, but just making that point for the post.

 

[Sendai]

I agree with you. What I want to know and understand is where and how the process broke down. I don’t believe it was deliberate either. So the question is how did a school get targeted? I don’t question that it was a school or that it was US munitions. But somehow that school did in fact make it into the target package. Until we know where the process broke, it is hard to say whether it was reckless disregard or an error on the part of someone in the chain to update information on that building. Mistakes do happen. That is why processes and controls are put into place. So if something or someone failed, we need to understand how and why that happened in order to hold anyone accountable.

I suspect the entire compound was targeted based on old, outdated information.