the outcome of the election

[ShadowHM]

Al Qaeda are not signatories of the Geneva convention, and are not lawful combatants in accordance with the "rules of war," which leaves them in a rather weird legal limbo.  It is not required to force fit them into a template designed for legal combatants.  As terrorists, they are an interesting fusion of criminal and user of force for political aims.  The rules simply do not cover them, except perhaps as partisans.  Maybe. 

...

However, I will again point out that "war on terrorists" is not the conventional war that the Geneva Accords are aimed at regulating.  A new precedent can be set, since all laws are WHATEVER WE MAKE UP AND CAN BACK UP.  [right][snapback]59451[/snapback][/right]

Therein lies the 'real' problem as I see it.

Just like the Americans did, over two hundred years ago, by hiding behind trees and picking off the Redcoats as they marched in unison, a new kind of warfare is being waged. It took the British a very very long time to adapt to that. They were still adapting when the Boer War came.

This war was not started by a 'nation'. It was started by many (possibly, but not necessarily overlapping) groups of people who have murky goals that appear to include a desire to eliminate 'national' agendas. Terrorists have no distinct nationality.


We, the targets of the terrorists*, are stumbling around seeking to find a way to defend ourselves against terrorism. The 'rules of warfare' are in a state of flux.

Yes, we do live in interesting times. :( I really hope we all learn faster than the British did in my example above.


*And yes, frankly, everyone who posts on this board is part of that 'we'. The westernized world is what is under attack. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself.