Israel spots a journalist!

[IT Minion]

I thought destroying civilian infrastructure, i.e. bridges etc, was a war crime?

It's a grey area. You can do it legally but from what little I know of this it doesn't seem like a justified strike.

Short version: To cut strategic supply lines or for tactical reasons is fine. Blowing it up primarily to mess with civilians is not. Intent matters.

 

[Highway Man]

Any bridge, road and railway are legitimate war targets if they are or can be used as supply lines or troop movement. Perfectly acceptable.

 

[THFC]

He's a Brit working for the Russians, so who cares

 

[noseall]

He's a Brit working for the Russians, so who cares

Trump?

Sorry, I thougt you said a shít working for the Russians.

 

[aveatry]

More JohnD propaganda

He has been caught out for it many times - but call him out for it and you find yourself banned from the thread. He is like a spiteful child.

 

[securespark]

If you look closely you can see the bridge is already destroyed before the missile strike...

Indeed. So why would they want to destroy it again?

 

[Highway Man]

Indeed. So why would they want to destroy it again?

It wasnt completely destroyed and could still be used.

 

[Stivino]

Any bridge, road and railway are legitimate war targets if they are or can be used as supply lines or troop movement. Perfectly acceptable.

A quick Google says this;
It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population whatever the motive.

 

[Highway Man]

A quick Google says this;
It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population whatever the motive.

A bridge used for the transport of military equipement, personel as well as munition and fuels even if used by civillians is legitimate.

 

[Highway Man]

AI Overview

Yes, a bridge is a legitimate military target if it makes an effective contribution to military action (e.g., supplying troops) and its destruction offers a definite military advantage, even if used by civilians
.This is known as a "dual-use object". However, the attack must adhere to the principle of proportionality, meaning expected civilian harm cannot be excessive compared to the anticipated military gain.
No civillians were harmed in this attack.

 

[Highway Man]

• Dual-Use Objects: When a bridge serves both civilian traffic and military purposes, it is generally considered a military objective under IHL, provided its military utility is not negligible.
• Examples: The Crimea Bridge is frequently cited as a legitimate military target because it is used for supplying Russian forces, even though it carries civilian traffic

 

[Stivino]

Ahh but, ah but, I knew that was coming.

 

[Highway Man]

Ahh but, ah but, I knew that was comingg.

Israeli air strikes have destroyed two bridges over the Litani River linking southern Lebanon with the rest of the country, the military says.
It comes hours after the Israeli military said it would target crossings it alleged were being used by the Hezbollah armed group to move fighters and weapons.
Defence minister Israel Katz said the bridges were targeted on Wednesday in a "direct action against Hezbollah's use of Lebanon's state infrastructure to advance terrorist activity". Hezbollah has not yet commented.
Earlier on Wednesday, the Israeli military warned civilians near the Litani crossings to evacuate.

 

[JohnD]

A bridge used for the transport of military equipement, personel as well as munition and fuels even if used by civillians is legitimate.

So that would be every bridge in Israel.

 

[Highway Man]

So that would be every bridge in Israel.

If t is used to transport soldiers and equipment accross them as a regular route, yes of course it would. Which bridge are you thinking of in Israel?