[JumpCrisscross]

> It was not bait. USA official doctrine right now is "we dont care"

Hospitals lose protection under international law when used for military purposes for good reason. Iran and its proxies have essentially been abusing the conventions that held until now. That doesn't excuse hitting a school, nor suggest that we should do away with these protections. But if one side keeps using schools and hospitals to cover materiel, the notion that those are not legitimate military targets becomes untenable.

[watwut]

American official attitude is "there are no rules of engagement those are stupid".

Nice apologia attempt, but no. Somehow all hospitals where Israel operates are oitside of geneva convention, always. All the accusations you made here are made up on the spot by you.

This is not about Iran abusing convention. This is USA and Israel official doctrine being like "it does not apply to us" and "the fact that we dont care makes us manly".

The school in question did not hosted missiles. And when israel "ordered" 200000 people to move away else they are valid target of murder, they were trying to create local refugee crisis.

[JumpCrisscross]

> American official attitude is "there are no rules of engagement those are stupid"

Yeah, that was Hegseth being an idiot.

> apologia attempt, but no

Not an apology. Just an explanation of relevant law. If America started piling muntions on its hospital ships, those would be legal targets in a war. (We'd still complain when it was bombed.)

The more fundamental issue is nobody is following those rules anymore. China, Russia and America have explicitly rejected them. Israel, Iran and its proxies, too.

> This is not about Iran abusing convention

Not liking a fact doesn't make it untrue. America, Iran and Israel are each acting well outside the bounds of international law and have been for some time.

> school in question did not hosted missiles

We don't know. We have no evidence it did, so my default is this was a fuckup by America.

It should bring consequences. It won't, in part because we're in a world where it doesn't for any of America's adversaries. (Who, in turn, dovetailed off America's example in the Cold War. Though it's not like Iran and China weren't busy running roughshod over international law in that time, either.)

> when israel "ordered" 200000 people to move away else they are valid target of murder, they were trying to create local refugee crisis

Nobody wants a refugee crisis. What you're correctly identifying is there is limited regard for civilian casualties on the Israeli side. Though based on current numbers, they're well within norms (in Iran).