> The UN mission concluded
why "The UN mission" conclusions are blindly considered as some high quality analytics?
why "The UN mission" conclusions are blindly considered as some high quality analytics?
[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...
This sounds like extreme hand-waving to me.
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?
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 If that's not enough, the DoD's own preliminary investigation produced the outdated-targeting finding.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...