Eh, warcrimes aren't exclusive to fascism.

I'm not saying that it therefore definitely isn't, I'm saying that committing warcrimes by itself is not justification for calling something fascist.

You can commit warcrimes and be fascist, you can commit warcrimes and not be fascist. You can even be fascist without committing warcrimes (although give a fascist enough power and they'll probably, eventually start committing war crimes).

Despite this they definitely could still be fascist, but warcrimes alone do not make something fascist. To quote the guy that interviewed Ben Shapiro "plenty of things are bad and wrong, that doesn't make them fascist".

Warcrimes specifically targeting media outlets and the "free" press, now we're getting closer to. Although again, being against the media doesn't necessarily determine something to be fascist. Definitely a hallmark, but again, not exclusively. That being said, there is a marked difference between "being against" something, and launching a missile at it.

Was it intentional, was it a complete accident, was it a calculated part of the collateral damage?

I don't know if I'm really convinced. Even if it was fully intentional, I don't know if that by itself would be fascist. If it's a part of a wider pattern of fascist action (which it absolutely could be, I'm not saying it isn't), then I would say it's indicative of fascism, no doubt. But by itself, launching a missile at a building full of journalists isn't necessarily a fascist action.

War crime? Definitely. Terrorism? Undoubtedly.

Fascist? Only maybe.