Why limit themselves to just one war crime?
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
161 points (97.6% liked)
news
804 readers
1190 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
They never do.
To really test the people who think they should 'both sides' this war too
Just to be fair, under Obama, the US ran out of bombs from all the ones that were dropped on Syria.
If nothing else has gotten their attention, in not sure this will.
It's only a war crime if you bother to sign treaties that recognize the courts!
We, the US, still has a standing plan drawn up to literally invade The Hague, in the event anyone ever tries to hold us accountable for our crimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
The American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA), known as the Hague Invasion Act[1]
There yah go, that's America, in one sentence fragment.
The article implies that tungsten pellets are particularly bad, but they're actually a replacement for cluster bombs that could leave behind unexploded ordnance. Technology can't save civilians from a missile targeted at where they are, but at least these missiles don't also endanger people entering the area in the future.
Cluster bombs are already a war crime because they by default will hit civilians, aren’t they? So of course we developed better ones, so we can be environmentally friendly while we kill civilians!
Targeting civilians is a war crime no matter the weapons platform used.
The use of cluster munitions is not illegal, as none of the parties here are signatories to the international treaties prohibiting their use.
They are designed as anti-material weapons, whereas a regular cruise or ballistic missile might blow up a building, these are meant to destroy equipment and kill personnel over a wider area.
Their negative connotations come from the weapons mechanism which is releasing miniature bomblets over the targeted area. Some of which have been known to fail to detonate immediately, and subsequently kill or maime civilians who come across them later.
And to be 100% sure, a second missile is sent to kill the civilians who gathered to rescue the first victims.
So, instead of lots of little bombs, it's a lot of shrapnel.
All weapons used on civilian by the american nazi scum are bad, Disgusting american swine, filthy butchering animals!
US elites can't get enough of children.....fucking them, saving them, testing weapons on them... Always with the children....
So basically, we've upgraded from the... expanding-head-arrow-missile...
... to the buckshot-missile.
Come on Apophis, don't miss next time.
Anytime they say they are trying to protect children call them out on their lies. Every damn time. Call them out. Fakest people alive.
Wow, I hadn’t heard about this school.
This type of bomb seems like the kind of thing you’d call a war crime even if not dropped on children.
Just designed for mass shrapnel damage and burns.
It’s weird they build these girl schools next to theirs military compounds but none of this was hidden info. The US should have done basic due diligence. And that’s giving them massive benefit of the doubt.
A lot of the schoolgirls and some teachers were family members of military personnel. (In the US, families often live "on base," I guess it's similar. The building was originally part of the compound but it was walled off when it was made into a school. It makes sense to me that ina place where girls and women are restricted from traveling, they'd need a school close to home.