cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/33264
US military investigators have said it is likely its forces were responsible for a strike on a girls’ school in Iran that killed scores of children and has been condemned as a war crime, according to a report by Reuters.
The attack on the Minab girls’ school in southern Iran on Saturday is believed to have killed at least 165 people, mostly children under the age of 12.
The UN’s education agency, Unesco, said the attack was a “grave violation of humanitarian law”.
US war secretary Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday that the military was investigating the incident. Investigators have not reached a final conclusion and it is still unclear what evidence contributed to their assessment, Reuters reported, citing two unnamed officials.
It was also unclear what type of munitions were used and who was responsible, the outlet said.
An investigation by news outlet Middle East Eye determined that the attack on the school was a “double tap” strike – where a target is hit a second time in order to kill rescuers who come to the aid of the injured.
“When the first bomb hit the school, one of the teachers and the principal moved a group of students to the prayer hall to protect them,” a Red Crescent medic told the outlet, citing conversations he had with survivors.
“The principal called the parents and told them to come and pick up their children. But the second bomb hit that area as well. Only a small number of those who had taken shelter survived.”
The UK has joined the war on Iran – which is illegal because it was not approved by the UN or US congress – by allowing the use of its bases for strikes against the country.
Prime minister Keir Starmer has claimed the UK’s involvement is an act of self-defence, despite the fact the US and Israel started the war.
From Novara Media via This RSS Feed.
lol. As if ‘the coalition’ has ever allowed itself to be influenced by Talib even a little. Biden presided over, and participated in an active genocide. When given the opportunity to break from that policy, Harris doubled down on it in spite of political interests.
Wake me up when Tlaib stops being a Democrat then.
Until then, she knows what you do not.
Are you involved in your state’s Democratic primaries? Whom are you supporting to change the makeup of the Democratic party!?
Look, I agree with the sentiment that we need to participate in the primary process and create a better pool of Democrats. The party needs to be entirely reformed. Part of that process is smacking down comments that suggest that anyone with as destructive a history as Harris could reasonably represent such change. Fact is, Harris is entirely representative of the corrupt, feckless, collaborative nature of the modern Democratic Party. It is her and what she represents so well, that has built a party that has facilitated the rise of right wing fascism for at least 40 years. We should have no tolerance for the likes of Harris.
I had much criticism of Harris as I did Biden. But Biden proved to be better than Trump in a myriad of ways:
If we only focus on one aspect of someone’s policy (which even then I refuse to believe Harris is as bad as Trump on Gaza), it can skew the big picture.
Unfortunately, my vote for Harris wasn’t ideal; it was simply a matter of damage-control. It’s my firm belief that these US service-members would not have been sent. It’s my firm belief that these 100+ Iranian school children would not have died. Leaving aside all the issues I previously mentioned where Harris and the ENTIRE Democratic party is objectively-better on (leaving aside, you know, Harris, Biden, Obama, etc. NOT being in the Epstein Files).
You are making ‘harm reduction’ and an ‘anti-litmus testing’ arguments. There are merits to both, but let me explain how my positions have shifted in recent years. I hope that you and the Democratic Party are interested.
It is very clear to me that 40 years of harm reduction voting hasn’t worked at all. The party has only lurched rightward at every juncture and refuses to meaningfully mount opposition to fascism.
There are some issues that are so egregiously simple and important, that they serve as good measures of how an official will operate while in office. Genocide is an example of this. If you are willing to even just play footsie with that policy, you cannot be trusted on anything else, full stop.
As I said before, it is incumbent upon us to get better people nominated. But the party needs to understand that me (and perhaps others) are no longer willing to move to them (that is, compromise to suit their conservative ideology). They have to start coming to me/us. You will probably say that a (small-d) democratic party’s positions are dictated by who we nominate and elect, so I should be focusing my efforts on driving better nominations. I get it. But it is also true that this party has a very strong corporate-captured leadership that regularly puts its thumb on that democratic process. That is who I am addressing with these comments.
By all means, your position is valid if during the primaries; it’s not valid once primaries are over and the outcome of the election is all but guaranteed to be one of the candidates on the ballot. After that, however, one begins making an accelerationist argument, and I cannot abide because along that pathway a lot of people will suffer. We are closer to the brink of WWIII or nuclear war than ever before when that wasn’t always an assured outcome.
I also cannot fault the hero who didn’t fight well enough versus the villain who made it necessary to fight perfectly.
I will always be on the side of anti-fascism above all. Even if that means choosing a lesser evil, or lesser poison. If only to save one life; if only to give access to abortion for one more woman; to promote one better vaccine policy, etc.
Otherwise, letting the fascist in leads to an acceleration of Entropy.
I hope one makes the case during these primaries actively and supports said candidates (do you have some in mind in any particular races), but after that we all join together to fight the much greater inevitable danger that is the Republican party.
I have followed and advocated for the practice you are describing for 40 years. I was literally making phone calls for Dukakis before I was old enough to vote. I say these things into emphasize my next point to you any anyone in party leadership that might hear my words.
You have already lost me. I’m not doing it anymore. You have to convince me that you’re worthy of my support through POLICY. Nothing you say about political dynamics is going to sway me anymore. I’m done with it. Now, maybe I’m an aberration. But, if the reporting on the DNC post mortem on the Harris campaign is accurate, I don’t think that is the case.