International law no longer speaks in terms of “wars,” but of “armed conflicts.” These are usually understood to be between States, although internal conflicts of exceptional intensity may also be included. The present scenario is complicated because the attacks were not directly carried out by a State, giving rise to some provocative gray areas and points of disagreement. APV Rogers notes that “the law has been moving slowly towards recognizing dissident armed factions and authorities representing liberation movements as quasi-states.” According to David Turns, “There seems little doubt that [these events] will pose a challenge to the future development of the legal definition of ‘armed conflict’ and the specific rules applicable in such conflicts.” H. Wayne Elliott disagrees: “I’m not so sure. There is evidence that bin Laden, even if not a head of State, acted with the sanction of a State. If so, what we have here is a conflict between two States.”