Ostensibly we were adhering to "the gentleman's rules" on those strike attempts. We waited until we expected them to be at a location of military value, and then bombed that location with the hope he would still be there. That way if we did kill them, we could claim it was "a happy accident" and not an attack outright targeting them.
Another yeoman effort to recast events to your liking. You've redefined "cultural sites" to include civil infrastructure, so wouldn't you agree that anywhere those dictators happened to be were "military sites"? And the "happy accident" would have (or did) killed many civilians, too.
As I return to this thread to clear the new tags. Trump later walked his comment back, so he evidently wasn't going for the more sarcastic interpretation we were running with. But to continue on this train of thought for a bit:
Civil Infrastructure in a lot of cases
is military infrastructure. They need electricity to power their RADARs, many weapon systems, and their communications. They need transportation infrastructure to move men and material to where it is needed, when it is needed. (Or to keep the civilians out of their way in the case of some transit systems--which could be used to move infantry, if nothing else)
A drydock used for servicing fishing boats can "easily enough" be re-purposed to service coastal defense craft, if not larger vessels depending on the size of the "fishing boat" in question. (Some can be quite large)
Yes, the military would presumably be able to operate their stuff even if you knock out the civil power grid, but that then means they need material to keep their backup generators running, which means they're then relying on local transportation infrastructure.. Which is why the military would then start determining on if they want to blow up a particular bridge or not.
As to:
wouldn't you agree that anywhere those dictators happened to be were "military sites"?
Not exactly. Anywhere an enemy leader is located is a site of military interest, and can justify military actions taken at that location. However, that's a sliding scale that is very slippery, which will depend heavily on what the leader is doing while at that site, duration of their stay, and a number of other variables.
Blowing up Westminster Abbey because the Prime Minister and Queen happen to be in attendance for a wedding ceremony for example would be extremely "bad form" and worthy of universal condemnation, even with "a military justification" in the from of taking out the heads of state. Sending a company+ of infantry to assault and capture the Abbey during the Wedding would be another matter.
Now if it turned out the Queen and Prime Minister were holed up in Westminster Abbey because they'd set up command and control facilities in the Chapel and they were conducting a military campaign from within its halls? Flattening the building is on the proverbial table, and the ones needing condemnation would be the Queen and Prime Minister for having setup their operations at that location.
Needless to say as an aside, in the above scenario, if the Abbey was being used for command and control, and boasted other defensive emplacements even absent the Prime Minister and Queen, it becomes a valid target because it is being used for military purposes, which makes it a military target in its own right.
Another way to frame it, the USS Lincoln is a valid military target without respect to who is, or is not embarked upon it. Attacking the USS Lincoln while Donald Trump is walking its decks is "acceptable" so far as the rules of war are concerned. As ostensibly the claim can be made that the Lincoln was the target, not Trump. If Trump happened to be killed during the attack, well, that's a "happy accident" for the opposing force as per "the gentleman's rules"--even if they knew full well he was there before launching the attack, and may have been holding off on attacking the Lincoln expressly for the purpose of waiting for Trump to arrive.
