Or were the editors drunker then Ted Kennedy on a day ending with a "Y", and miss this in the publishing que? (New York Times)
We were in a small house in Zarqa, Jordan, trying to interview two heavily bearded Islamic militants about their distribution of recruitment videos when one of us asked one too many questions.
“He’s American?†one of the militants growled. “Let’s kidnap and kill him.â€
The room fell silent. But before anyone could act on this impulse, the rules of jihadi etiquette kicked in. You can’t just slaughter a visitor, militants are taught by sympathetic Islamic scholars. You need permission from whoever arranges the meeting. And in this case, the arranger who helped us to meet this pair declined to sign off.
“He’s my guest,†Marwan Shehadeh, a Jordanian researcher, told the bearded men.
With Islamist violence brewing in various parts of the world, the set of rules that seek to guide and justify the killing that militants do is growing more complex.
I’m glad that the Times spends so much time with terrorists. Perhaps they could spend some time talking with some of the Coalition troops and US military folks.
Anyhow, what are those rules?
- You can kill bystanders without feeling a lot of guilt
- You can kill children, too, without needing to feel distress (<liberals? What say you on this?)
- Sometimes, you can single out civilians for killing; bankers are an example
- You cannot kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there (how does that explain all the foreign killers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, America, etc?)
- You can lie or hide your religion if you do this for jihad
- You may need to ask your parents for their consent (or have Saddam pay them $25,000 for kiddy to blow him/herself up in a pizza parlor)
There you have. The rules of killing. How about it, Libs? Do you support this? Pick a side.
Of course, one rule seems to be absent: death to the unbeliever.
Michael P.F. Van Der Galien breaks down the so called rules.
Read more at Tigerhawk and Neptune Lex
