4 ms·

In a war fought according to rules, hitting anything that's not actively used by a belligerent is illegal.

• neoromantique 4y ago
  This bridge has been used to transfer military equipment and heavy machinery pretty much non-stop for the past seven months, so it is a valid target.
  • sbmthakur 4y ago
    That's correct. That's the reason why a lot of civilian infrastructure in Gaza becomes a legitimate military target during Hamas-Israel confrontations.
    • rootw0rm 4y ago
      Gaza is a concentration camp, there are no legitimate military targets there. https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/norman-finkelstein-gaza-iran-israel-jerusalem-embassy/ https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/norman-finkelstein-gaza-...
      • graymatters 4y ago
        That’s interesting. Can you name any other concentration camps that shoot thousands of rockets at civilian cities? ‘Cause that’s what coming out of Gaza.
• jcranmer 4y ago
  Bridges are the kind of poster child for civil infrastructure that is usually targeted by belligerents in a war. The Kerch Bridge is a key part of Russian military logistics for Crimea, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it's a target.
• Arainach 4y ago
  Define "actively used". Is an ammo depot with no one currently removing items from it actively used? What about a bridge that's used to bring in reinforcements but has no vehicles currently on it?
  • sbmthakur 4y ago
    Once the military uses it, it becomes a target regardless of its utility to civilians.
• sokoloff 4y ago
  As an obvious counter-example: a runway at a military airfield is a legitimate target even if not in active use. Same for military aircraft sitting dark in hangars at that airfield.