>"All Al Quada members arrested in Europe were held with the charges of conspiring against states or getting ready to commit terrorist acts."

If conspiring against states, or getting ready to commit terrorist acts is the legal definition of terrorist, then it is a self-serving statist definition being used. This would ignore the complicity of the state when it uses terrorists to wage surrogate wars, ie Iran with Hezzbollah or Palestine with Hammas, or when the state itself becomes the terrorist waging war against its own population as in Latin America.

Also neglected here is any discussion of revolution or political dissent. It seems conspiring against the state could be convoluted into covering any dissident political acts. Would the revolutionary Americans hve been terrorist under this rubric? How about the Confederates?

>"Now, about those in training camps in Iraq (if it's the case), then perhaps the rule of war is appropriate.
But I don't really know."

The US CIA had Contra training camps in Costa Rica. Tell me how this is different?

To maintain any moral asendency we don't need to change the rules of war to suit us, we need to follow established protocols so the world will be able to see who the good guys are.