Re: Obsolete Rules . . .
>"I believe it has to do with the idea that people who attack civilians and commercial enterprises with the hope of causing injury and/or death should not be allowed the same privileges as ‘real’ soldiers. The current Geneva accords do not cover terrorist extremists in any way."
Under this daffynition it doesn't cover stategic warfare either. And just how do you separate the freedom fighter from the terrorist? This should be interesting.