If they can be conceived as considerably assisting the war effort against you, and destroying it has definite gain for you, its a legit military target.

It has a written definition. As long as the damage to civilians is proportional to the gain, then its legitimate. In fact, it was shown in Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention that defined it that a "random girl who makes oil for work that down the line is used for tanks" can be argued as a legitimate military target.

As long as the attack can be said to not be random on civilians directly or food/water sources, it can be protected under that banner if the gain is significant enough. Which is why appealing to something as retarded as the Geneva Convention definitions is dumb (especially as Russia revoked their agreement to it like 4 years ago).

No, it doesn't. If they can be conceived as considerably assisting the war effort against you, and destroying it has definite gain for you, its a legit military target.

It has a written definition. As long as the damage to civilians is proportional to the gain, then its legitimate. In fact, it was shown in Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention that defined it that a "random girl who makes oil for work that down the line is used for tanks" can be argued as a legitimate military target.

As long as the attack can be said to not be random on civilians directly or food/water sources, it can be protected under that banner if the gain is significant enough. Which is why appealing to something as retarded as the Geneva Convention definitions is dumb (especially as Russia revoked their agreement to it like 4 years ago).