>>>>>OK, so a force from, say, Bananaguay has all the rights to send an expedition to Langley, because a CIA funded and trained terrorist group just attempted a coup and maintains a few camps the Stalk province, because that's new territory for the legal system of Bananaguay, and these guys have been killing their soldiers and policemen, and didn't bother to wear an uniform. Actually wore camouflage. But that's OK, they aren't any kind of army, they are just enemy combatants.
>>>>
>>>>They can try..
>>>
>>>Q.E.D. The official moral stance is the same as it ever was:
>>>
>>>"Good - that's when we rob and burn the other village and rape their women; bad - when they do that to us".
>>
>>You paint a picture of large numbers of soldiers raping and pillaging.... I certainly never did that and I don't know a single soldier who did and I've been involved in a few skirmishes with the local populace in foreign countries...
>
>No I do not. This is quoted from an age old ethnographic research, maybe even from Margaret Mead's times. It's only the apt illustration of the moral based on power. If it looked as if I was mentioning a concrete example, looks can deceive.
>
>This is frustrating. I'm becoming paranoid, whatever I write can be taken literally.

To be completely honest, I should amend my statement to read: I certainly never did that and I don't know a single soldier fighting on my side who did and I've been involved in a few skirmishes with the local populace in foreign countries...

which is why I interpreted your statement literally when you didn't intend it so. Just don't pay any attention to me. I will periodically jump on stuff that should be left alone...