Well, it's been working for probably 25+ years.

The warped-ness in the (Arab) Muslim world is due in large part to their inability to face the catastrophe of June 1967. The craziness in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and (parts of) Indonesia is due to the weird mix of Islam with tribal traditions, suddenly finding itself in the modern world with TV, cinema, cell phones, and the Internet.

About 6 months ago, there was a story (I believe posted here as well) about a young Saudi who was delivering a car bomb - of course, the controller detonated it with this guy still driving the car. He was horribly burned and now faces a desolate life, full of pain.

As long as they keep finding boys who want glamorous deaths, the nihilism will continue. Kind of like the attitude about war in Europe prior to September 1914, no? And after 4 years of slaughter, all they did was pause to catch their breaths for the next one.

That the actor's choice of victim should be considered material tells us something unpleasant about the way those people think. In our system, intent is transferable. If I lie in wait and intentionally shoot at someone I wish to kill, but miss and slay another, my act is premeditated murder, not involuntary manslaughter, as it would be if I had fired at a deer and recklessly killed a person standing in the line of fire.

Admitting that you premeditatedly acted to treacherously kill Americans but killed Iraqis only in error would hardly be a defense unless the court accepts legitimacy of killiong Americans. I should wish to learn how the Iraqi court resolves this matter.

That the actor's choice of victim should be considered material tells us something unpleasant about the way those people think. In our system, intent is transferable. If I lie in wait and intentionally shoot at someone I wish to kill, but miss and slay another, my act is premeditated murder, not involuntary manslaughter, as it would be if I had fired at a deer and recklessly killed a person standing in the line of fire.

Admitting that you premeditatedly acted to treacherously kill Americans but killed Iraqis only in error would hardly be a defense unless the court accepts legitimacy of killiong Americans. I should wish to learn how the Iraqi court resolves this matter.

Why shouldn't they be trying to drive the Americans out of their country?

That the actor's choice of victim should be considered material tells us something unpleasant about the way those people think. In our system, intent is transferable. If I lie in wait and intentionally shoot at someone I wish to kill, but miss and slay another, my act is premeditated murder, not involuntary manslaughter, as it would be if I had fired at a deer and recklessly killed a person standing in the line of fire.

Admitting that you premeditatedly acted to treacherously kill Americans but killed Iraqis only in error would hardly be a defense unless the court accepts legitimacy of killiong Americans. I should wish to learn how the Iraqi court resolves this matter.

They had the chance to drive the Americans out of their country in honorable, lawful combat. They failed. They may not now pick up the weapons they had cast down in surrender to treacherously strike the Americans in the back. What are you implying, that car bombers are lawful combatants entitled to the privileges of belligerancy?

Your reply is precisely what is troubling about this point. It seems no one knows or cares what law in general or the law of war in particular has to do with what is going on in Iraq.

Yes.

The implication seems to be that anything a terroriat does is just peachy because he is too weak to do anything better. If you think that way you may as well send off to Berlitz for the Arabic lessons. I suppose the next thing we'll hear is that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

No, they shouldn't target Iraqi civilians. The US military is fair game.

If the terrorists want to drive Americans out of "their" countries, why don't they go home and attempt to find some Americans to drive out ?

The Sunnis and Ba'athists may have some moral legitimacy behind their use of car bombs, (although I would disagree), but the foreign merchants of death have none.

The Law of War, as recognized by the United States has not changed since I was a Marine JAG. The worthy oriental gentlemen delivering the car bombs are war criminals, unlawful combatants, if you will, unless a) they are wearing a uniform, or a visible equivalent of a uniform and b) they are attacking a military target, civilian casulties being only incidental and proportional. The record is that they fail in both regards.

The general rule is that if you cannot fight lawfully, you may not fight at all. Desparation is not a defense. This was the substantive basis of Yamashita's conviction for crimes committed by his subordinates, arguably after he had lost control of them and before any surrender.

We write the law to favor us--to do otherwise would be foolish. To follow the law if you aren't us would likewise be foolish.

Obviously we aren't willing to round up and kill the way the British did 80 years ago. Obviously the "insurgents" aren't going to stop (in the short term). Legality would matter if we wanted to start 'fighting' harder, or if the terrorists thought they could convince us to leave (as in Vietnam).

As time goes on, the terrorists will face harsher conditions and more bullets from Iraqis (as well as Americans). The best way to hurt them, however, is to start killing Syrians, just inside their border. Who is Assad going to complain to?