I live near a military base, and there is a daycare, school, rec center, pub, ice rink, church, and grocery store, open to the public, and not managed by the military. All of it is on land owned by the military, but outside the wire.
The fact that these facilities exist on military land near a base (which a hostile government would surely argue IS the base) does not mean that the people in those buildings have it coming.
Technically the statutes of Rome forbid using human shields.
A nation state bombing US mainland bases sounds rather implausible, although I certainly would prefer that civilian infrastructure to have a minimum distance to military targets, even in the US, even if only to set the right example to the rest of the world.
I do believe there would be value in modernizing the statutes of Rome regarding human shields, which would force nation states to compile machine readable lists of school locations, so that non-existent reported childrens schools and secret childrens schools would be automatically screened.
Keeping the school secret, or reporting a school location too close to a military base would then activate the right of the international community to attack that nation, in order to prevent nation states from using elementary schools etc. as human shields.
IRGC wants nuclear ICBM's. Iran invests heavily in STEM education and physics. The whole population is aware of such goals, the whole population is aware of the adversarial relationship with the Western hemisphere. Imagine your child being allocated the school that was bombed in Iran, but before it was bombed: wouldn't you protest and ask for your child to be allocated to a different school? They risk being the first casualties when the inevitable escalation to war occurs. Clearly in this fun society of Iran, those parents didn't get a choice, and could only pray their kids get through elementary before such a foreign attack occurs.
IMHO, the most damning aspect is that proper, modernized international law clarifying the permitted action-reaction patterns around human shields could have prevented these deaths, by disincentivizing such nations from using kids as human shields.
No one is using human shields. There are just non viable targets next to viable ones. Blowing up a school intentionally because you have bad intel or incompetent staff is tan unmitigated fuckup and war crime. We also don’t give two shits about “Roman statutes”. There is no moral obligation to attack a country that has schools near military facilities based on a dead empire from a couple millennia ago.
On closer reading, this is an insane take on a bunch of levels. Your username being a well known nazi isn’t a mistake is it?
> We also don’t give two shits about “Roman statutes”.
?
It doesn't improve credibility if you openly express disdain for that section of international law that describes human shields as war crimes, which defines the concept of human shields, and then proceed to dictate that nobody uses human shields. Are you claiming this section of law is superfluous because it never happens?
BTW, my user name refers to a well known frozen pizza brand.
The well known food brand was run by a card carrying wafen-SS member name Oetker who used his influence with the party to get sweetheart deals to supply the Wehrmacht. It’s an odd choice.
I’m not expressing disdain for the part of international law that bans human shields. I’m saying that civilian infrastructure near military infrastructure is not that. The “Rome Statute” - the accepted name for the law you are calling the Roman Statutes - does not have anything in it about it being fair game to massacre civilians. The disgusting argument that these girls had it coming since they were being g used as human shields is bunk since they were specifically targeted by precision munitions intended only for the civilian target. The entire tragedy could have been avoided with the same military outcome by just not bombing the school.
I’m not going to get into the weeds on semantic details with someone who coincidentally uses a nazi username and claims a moral imperative to bomb countries for placing a school within an arbitrary radius of a defense facility.
Your takes are wholesale indefensible, regardless of any quibbles about details.
There is never a justification for intentionally bombing a grade school. Period.
> There is never a justification for intentionally bombing a grade school. Period.
let me focus on this word "intentionally", intent.
When I take the ladder I hid somewhere else under the bridge, and climb in my secret homeless bum nest, I am taking that ladder with intent. So I know intent exists. When I intend thin gs I do them intentionally, and sometimes I don't intend things like accidentally knocking over someone else's glass of drink, then I know I didn't do it intentionally.
Whenever theres a conflict before the courts, and whenever the relevant laws refer to presence or absence of intent, there will be an interest for both the plaintiff and the defendant to make claims on intent: the plaintiff might claim the defendant did such and such with intent, while the defendant has an incentive to claim such and such happened without intent. People take risks, plaintiff took risks, defendant took risks. Often both are co-responsible for a sequence of events, the law (at least on paper) is not monocausal. It is important to be able to attribute faults with causal links to damages, but an even more important role of law is to align incentives such that all parties avoid ending up in these situations. The law serves more than remediation, it serves a prevention role!
I believe it is important to prevent tragic events like girls schools being bombed.
I simply believe it is more effective to prevent harm by focusing on provable facts at hand.
How can a judge verify if something happens with or without intent?
Suppose your loved one was on the Iran Air flight that was downed, do you really care if it was with or without intent? Your loved one is now gone. Wouldn't it be wiser to leave the world in a better place, and have intent-oriented language eliminated so that the international community can promise to act strongly and swiftly when a nation state violates certain intent-agnostic conditions. Keep the (war) crime criteria objective without reference to intent, and don't do reckless stuff which can result in downing civilian air craft (whether its Iran Air or the Dutch plane above Ukraine).
Don't do reckless stuff like have a military complex, then change one of the buildings into civilian use and not marking this change on places like OpenStreetMap.
At the very least a global international list of all childrens schools, universities, etc. And unconditional permission for the international community to use ground penetrating radar, acousting sounding etc to investigate claims of colocated military compounds. International community coffers that can only be used to investigate claimed colocations (human shields). A disincentivation mechanism to prevent malicious parties constantly calling wolf to drain this coffer to prevent investigation of themselves.
Why do people believe that we somehow already have the optimum of all possible laws? Do you sincerely believe no better system of laws can be designed that prevents most of these tragedies?
To be precise:
1. I used to work in a car factory
2. Somehow a conversation with colleagues turned to my diet
3. I told them I like to eat frozen pizza
4. They started calling me Doctor Oetker half the time, and "StreetFighter" the other half of the time.
5. Thats how I got a nickname.
Whats your story, apart from shooting down ideas on how to restore objectivity in international law, because any subjectivity will result in entities believing they can get away by playing the infinite "was too! was not! was too! was not!"-game on the topic of intent...
EDIT: also I just looked up more about the history of Dr. Oetker; and you seem to conflate a couple of things
you state:
> The well known food brand was run by a card carrying wafen-SS member name Oetker who used his influence with the party to get sweetheart deals to supply the Wehrmacht. It’s an odd choice.
But Oetker didn't run this company during the war, his stepfather did. On wikipedia I read he was an SS party member though, and organized support groups for SS members and other Nazi apologetism, which is disgusting indeed...
That’s a lot of words trying to reason around destroying several hundred families by liquifying their children due to negligent intel.
Here’s how we handle this: fuck semantics. If your missile is targeted at and destroys a school, you should be held responsible. In fact, you can remove the school from the equation. If you aim a weapon at something, and fire the weapon, you are responsible for the outcome. If the outcome is a destroyed military base, congrats, you get credit for that. If the outcome is children being returned to their parents in closed caskets, you better believe you get the blame for that. Bad targeting data is the responsibility of those doing the targeting, not the people being targeted.
We already have laws around all this. The school bombing was unequivocally a war crime.
I’m not going to hear any more stupid ideas about how we can change laws to shift the responsibility for not getting obliterated by a missile onto civilians.
Does that make it not a school, somehow? Or are we cool with killing kids just because their parents might be in the military? I'm not clear what the excuse being made actually is.
It's definitely not cool to have a school adjacent to a military base.
Not saying this specific attack was justified, but whoever allowed this, let alone if it was done intentionally as a strategy, also has blood on their hands.
Where do you think the children of our armed forces go to school? There are hundreds of schools on or adjacent to military installations in the US. The only people with blood on their hands for bombing a school are the people who bombed the school. It’s really not more complicated than that.
> It's definitely not cool to have a school adjacent to a military base. Not saying this specific attack was justified
I mean, you kind of are saying it was justified, given the entirety of your focus is on justifying it. The blood is solely on the hands of the useless, dumbshit military that couldn't identify a school and avoid bombing it. And that's the charitable interpretation of their actions.
