Re: Obsolete Rules . . .

Current Events » in reply to Re: Obsolete Rules . . .

Raoul — 2/22/2002 11:10:21 AM (archived)

Perhaps because terrorists are considered criminals in the legal sense, rather than soldiers.

Raoul

The whole thread (22 posts)

Change Obsolete Rules of Warfare, Says Bush Envoy . . . - D. Spires - 2/22/2002 6:43:28 PM
- Re: Obsolete Rules? - Raoul - 2/22/2002 7:56:23 PM
  - Re: Obsolete Rules . . . - D. Spires - 2/22/2002 10:23:50 AM
    - William Tecumseh Sherman - Mary Anne - 2/24/2002 8:38:22 PM
      - Peter the Great destroyed his own subject's lands... - alcaray - 2/25/2002 6:16:06 PM
        
        Re: Since Peter the Great . . . ? - D. Spires - 2/25/2002 8:07:25 PM
        
        I was asking a question, not offering an interpretation. - alcaray - 2/25/2002 9:17:46 AM
        
        Re: It is a justification for war . . . - D. Spires - 2/25/2002 11:01:22 AM
      - Re: Absolutely . . . - D. Spires - 2/25/2002 4:30:19 PM
      - Good! I irritated both of you! - Mary Anne - 2/24/2002 3:22:07 PM
      - Re: William Tecumseh Sherman - Publius - 2/24/2002 1:32:02 PM
      - Re: William Tecumseh Sherman - Tom Brosz - 2/24/2002 12:51:39 PM
    - Re: Obsolete Rules . . . - Publius - 2/23/2002 10:38:18 AM
      - Re: Obsolete Rules . . . - D. Spires - 2/23/2002 3:01:35 PM
    - Re: Obsolete Rules . . . - Raoul - 2/22/2002 11:10:21 AM
      - Re: By Whom . . . ? - D. Spires - 2/22/2002 11:20:19 AM
        
        Re: By Whom . . . ? - Publius - 2/23/2002 10:44:16 AM
        
        Re: By Whom . . . ? - D. Spires - 2/23/2002 3:03:45 PM
        
        Re: By Whom . . . ? - Raoul - 2/22/2002 11:42:52 AM
        
        Re: By Whom . . . ? - Publius - 2/23/2002 11:00:26 AM
        
        I hope that's a picket fence upon which you sit. (n/t) (n/t) - RobVG - 2/23/2002 12:00:09 PM
        
        Re: By Whom . . . ? - Raoul - 2/23/2002 11:43:00 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (22 posts)