This is a rare effort to explain the mindset of the Islamic insurgent and the "rules of engagement" under which he operates. Far different from the mindset of the West, this story -- with its personal threats experienced by the authors -- is educational. The authors have done good, if dangerous, research. This story has been archived on this site for those who have problems seeing it.

A remarkable insight into a completely alien mindset.

Interesting. It is a bit anecdotal and I wondered what selectivity was used in chosing the rules. The idea that it is ok to kill good innocent people because they will go to heaven is more than a little strange. The story is a strange mixture of rationalization, ethics, and the dangers of religious fervor. Now the sequels: the Christian rationalization for murder, the Jewish rationalization for murder, the rapture right rationalization for murder, and the Cheney guidebook to vivisecting cats.

This story is interesting & informative so far as it goes. However, what's the difference between radical Muslims & radical anything else over the past millenium? Why, not a thing! Nothing alien here - just despicable. Terrorists in general share this mindset.

Interesting glimpse at a few Muslim extremists. Unfortunately, racist because it (carelessly?) uses the word "Islamist" to describe a handful of Muslim extremists. I look forward to seeing the NYT feature the "Christianist" guidebook for killing innocent civilians. Good Christian George Bush has the blood of many children on his hands, and he sure did say God told him to bomb Iraq.

This is an important topic and provides insight into the dangers of religion - and how those so inclined can twist religious writing to support whatever cause they deem just. To acknowledge this and understand the danger this poses to our world isn't to insult to Islam, Judaism or Christianity - it is to support humanity. The scope of this article is limited to radical Islam, but radical religious belief of any stripe is just as dangerous and has cost (and continues to cost) the lives of countless innocents.

More chauvinist bigotry from people who've never done anything wrong or benefited from the wrong-doing that was done to feed their comfort levels. Naive children love bears, now that the bears are all but gone. It's a violent world and it always has been and everything you enjoy was bought and paid for by violent acts. Nothing, not territory not economic resources not even peace itself was gained through anything other than violence. But once it's done you can pretend it has no connection with where you're at. This article was written for the deranged, by the deranged.

This is old news for anyone familiar with translations from the Arabic provided by MEMRI.org. Another reviewer calls it a "rare effort" to explain the jihadi mindset, and indeed it is, for the NYTimes. The jihadi religious insanity has been widely covered elsewhere, and that it now appears prominently for readers of NYTimes opinion pages is important. My spouse even read it aloud from the paper edition. Could this story and its placement indicate the NY Times has seen the light in how it presents 'all the news that's fit to print?' I'll remain skeptical. While John Burns's reporting from Iraq is a notable exception, the NYTimes has, too often, been negligent and political in its coverage.

This piece should be "must reading" for all those who continue to defend radical Islamists. Here are a couple of their rules/guidelines that animate their terrorist actions: "You can kill bystanders without feeling a lot of guilt." and "You can kill children, too, without needing to feel distress."