Isn't destroying civilian infrastructure internationally illegal?

[lees1975]

Lots of tsk tsk tsk. Bluster and hyperbole aside, we need more than a yawn and an exclamation that "this is just Trump."

What's being done and who is doing it.

And if we go back to this "we're not in the majority right now" crap, then what does that say about the constitution's ability to protect Americans from a psychopath?

[RockRaven]

1. America seems to take pride in violating international law and/or claiming it doesn't apply.

The bipartisan consensus on that point is longstanding and shameful. We, at least, ought to be better.

[Irish_Dem]

2. We learned there are no checks and balances whatsoever.

What we were always taught was a lie, a total lie.

[WarGamer]

3. The definition excludes "dual use" meaning anything used for military ALSO is fair game.

[dpibel]

4. You know that's not correct

There are qualifiers to dual use.

For instance, there must be a military advantage to be gained from the attack.

Given that, according to you, The United States Of America has prevailed mightily and Iran has no ability to inflict damage on The United States Of America, it is impossible to gain any further military advantage.

On a more serious note: What is the military advantage gained by destroying that big ol' bridge? There are no ground operations going on. If Iran's military is not functional, the bridge can't change that.

In any case, you should really not be stating things as absolutes that are not absolute.

Remember, in the words of your sig line: "GOOD DU'ers don't propagandize other DU'ers." Propagating incorrect information seems an awful lot like that.

[AloeVera]

5. "Dual use" is not a legal concept under International Humanitarian Law or the Geneva Conventions.

Unfortunately states like the U.S. and Israel (and later Saudi Arabia and now Russia in Ukraine) have shaped the increased use of "dual use" targeting beginning with the Gulf War. Remember that the U.S. bombed Iraq's power stations way back then?

"Dual-use" targeting has watered down the core concept of IHL which is that CIVILIANS MUST BE PROTECTED.

Even if targeting a dual-use object is deemed a military objective, under IHL an attack is prohibited if the harm to civilians is excessive in relation to any military objective. That is why objects indispensable to civilian survival - like water and POWER stations - have special protection under IHL. Principles such as distinction, proportionality, humanity are to be applied. Clearly, Hegseth's military doesn't give a hoot about those principles and unfortunately he can point to precedent by the U.S. itself.

However your statement about the IHL and its treatment of dual-use objects seems incorrect and leaves out some important caveats and prohibitions.

[HesNotHere]

6. How is an unfinished bridge surrounded by cranes used by the military?

Just curious...

You seem to have a strange way of defending the criminal actions of this criminal administration.

On edit: This might help....

"eight people were killed and almost 100 injured when a bridge under construction in the city of Karaj, west of Tehran, was bombed on Thursday."
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp86mrj40e2o

But glory be to Dog when your dear leader bombs the citizens of Iran "back to the stone ages".