Decision ‘08

Rules To Kill By

The most talked-about article today is sure to be this piece in the New York Times that examines the Jihadi etiquette on murder:

This jihad etiquette is not written down, and for good reason. It varies as much in interpretation and practice as extremist groups vary in their goals. But the rules have some general themes that underlie actions ranging from the recent rash of suicide bombings in Algeria and Somalia, to the surge in beheadings and bombings by separatist Muslims in Thailand.

Some of these rules have deep roots in the Middle East, where, for example, the Egyptian Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi has argued it is fine to kill Israeli citizens because their compulsory military service means they are not truly civilians.

The war in Iraq is reshaping the etiquette, too. Suicide bombers from radical Sunni and Shiite Muslim groups have long been called martyrs, a locution that avoids the Koran’s ban on killing oneself in favor of the honor it accords death in battle against infidels. Now some Sunni militants are urging the killing of Shiites, alleging that they are not true Muslims. If there seems to be no published playbook, there are informal rules, and these were gathered by interviewing militants and their leaders, Islamic clerics and scholars in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and England, along with government intelligence officials in the Middle East, Europe and the United States.

Rules #1 and #2 basically say it’s okay to kill innocent bystanders and children. I was going to make some comment about John Edwards and bumper stickers, but I’ll let it go…

8 Responses to “Rules To Kill By”

1 CrawlinKingSnake Says:
June 10th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I never thought Id say this but hip hop culture got it right. If your after virgins make some money and buy a nice car. Its so much easier than blowing yourself up in the supermarket and you dont need to make a list of rediculous justifications to do it.
2 Ryan Bonneville Says:
June 11th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Just because there’s a nebulous group of folks who think it’s okay to blow up women and children - and we’ll ignore for a second that the piece you’ve posted all but admits that the group is ill-defined and has no agreed-upon structure of any kind - doesn’t make John Edwards wrong. In fact, this bit you’ve quoted only makes it more apparent that George Bush has declared a “war” on ideas and concepts rather than a clearly defined group. If you think ideas can be defeated by armed force, you go right ahead and keep believing that. It’s a position with illustrious - if completely contrary to fact - history.
3 Aaron Says:
June 11th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
So, fascism wasn’t discredited due to a military defeat in World War II? Please explain.
4 Mark Says:
June 11th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Yes, how about National Socialism? How did that fare in the aftermath of World War II?

Better still, what would you have us do - break bread with the Islamic extremists?

And even better still - what would Edwards have us do? Appease them by giving them Israel on a platter?…
5 Ryan Bonneville Says:
June 11th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
If you think war can defeat an ideology and you think World War II is the prime example, name a target. Who do we defeat to end Islamic whatever-you’re-calling-it-this-week? Is it Baathist Iraq? Because Saddam really preaches him some Islam.

Mark, I don’t know what you mean by “break bread with the Islamic extremists”. Who are these people? Do you have a list? Do you have a formal leadership structure that even makes such an action make sense? Who is the leader of Islamic extremism? Where would we go to meet him/her? That said, I would as much “break bread” with the leaders of terrorist organizations as I would with the heads of international drug cartels or human traffickers - meaning not at all. And nor would Edwards. There are more solutions here than a) stupid war on ideas that doesn’t make sense as anything other than a political tactic to alienate your opposition and b) surrender to the barbaric hordes.
6 Scott Says:
June 11th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Again Ryan you miss the point. How is fly-over country supposed to feel safe if we aren’t in a war against our enemies (whoever they are/definable or not)? Keep in mind the excitement and relief felt by the public when the President comes to our rescue and saves us from some hapless idiots who have an lame plan to blow up a pipeline or the Sears Tower. You are fighting a very primitive human nature here - fear. Much better to explain it like Senator Clinton - there is a war on terrorism, we are safer, but we need to be safer and can be if the people in charge are much smarter.
7 Mark Says:
June 11th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Yes, Scott, you are fighting a very primitive human nature here…the kind that kills innocents and glorifies it with the promise of sex in paradise with virgins; the kind that beheads its enemies and puts the videos on the Internet…oh, wait, you were talking about the Bush administration being primitive.

I…see…hmmm….
8 Ryan Bonneville Says:
June 12th, 2007 at 7:29 am
There are two kinds of primitivism here, Mark. One is the ideology that would kill us just to kill us; the other is the kind that offers us tyranny in the name of saving us. I choose neither.