Clownfish

RE: Medibank ads

I am soooooo sick of those teeth.

BTW

I agree that you have hit on the issue - we no longer fight wars anymore instead we have raids, skirmishes, mini-invasions - there are no rules that apply.

The other thing that occurred to me, reading Jo's article, was Orwell's observation that, 'one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries.'

'Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.'

"By the same principle, does that make Barack Obama a 'combatant' and therefore a legal target, as he is the commander in chief of the US armed forces? I'm not being facetious - it's a genuine question."
Posted by Otokonoko,

Absolutely- in a war the commander of the armed forces/head of state of the enemy nation is as much fair game as the other- something both heads of both forces understand.

Alternatively, had Bin Laden or some other Islamist somehow actually won the debate and stormed the white house, would anyone have thought that Bin Laden had a mandate to charge Obama with an offense under Shariah law?
(the answer is no).

In a context that two people are going to command their armed forces to kill their way through the enemy commander's armed forces, the idea that they'd actually kill the commander actually responsible is entirely reasonable if we were to consider the rest acceptable.

When Al Quaida and the Taliban declared they were at war with the US
and other Western countries they generated a new set of rules.
Now war does not have to be between city states or counries, it now
can be between ad hoc organisations and cities or countries.

Additionally the rules of war have changed. Soldiers do not need to
wear uniforms or have serial numbers and paybooks.
Civilians need to keep well clear of soldiers as they dress in a very
similar manner. Likewise a civilian carrying a weapon has no recourse
if he is shot on sight by a soldier.

Now the legal establishment in and out of the UN may not like this but
what do they have to do with it ?
All they have to do is draw up the rules to suit the new arrangements.