>>>
>>>Why distinguish?
>>
>>Just to differ from these terrorists.
>>
>>You see, they had some dispute with American foreign policy, and didn't bother to distinguish between the actual decision makers, organizers, and executives of this policy on one side, and the ordinary people on the other; they simply didn't care if civilians get killed. That's what makes them terrorists, and puts them out of the ramifications of Geneva convention and international law.
>
>Dragan,
> It is now a moot point for me, as I guess for the most part I agree with you. Hopefully, the decision makers will be as level-headed about this as you have been. But, just to be an arguer :), if they are put out of the ramifications of Geneva convention and international law, wouldn't it then be justified to use any force necessary?

Risking to repeat myself - define who are "they". If it's the terrorist organizations, their financial sources, inspirers, and actual members, yes. By taking part in acts of terrorism, they have put themselves into a position of international outlaws (literally: international law doesn't protect them anymore). If it's whole countries, definitely no.