<Peter the Great destroyed his own subject's lands in order to deny food and shelter to the invading enemy (Sweden? Prussia? can't remember). I'd be surprised if the Chinese didn't try it at least once against the Mongols.

Likewise, assassination and kidnapping have been perpetrated vs. any type of target (military, business, civilian, etc.) you can name.

That being said: what has changed? I'm really not following this "outdated" argument.





since Peter the Great, I would like to believe people have changed.

Welcome to Manhatten's Ground Zero -- which is now to be called al Qui'da territory? Well, there is no way on the face of this Earth that you could ever argue the World Trade Center to be a viable military target, any more than an overseas embassy of any nation would be. These are the gathering places for traveling civilians, citizens of the free world, people who have no interest in war whatsoever. Because I am visiting a country and need some assistance regarding my passport is no reason I should be blown up because some al Qui’da asshole is answering his fatwa and deciding this was a good day to become a martyr.

Your interpretation appears to be that vigilantism is the way of the future, and I wholeheartedly disagree. This is probably only one of the many reasons neither you, nor I, have ever been called by the UN to rewrite the laws governing war -- though I wouldn't mind having the chance to actually debate war into oblivion.

Dan