This little essay (pointed out by Instapundit) adds some meaning to what we've been calling terrorism -- it's a blood feud.
If this is so, then, calling it terrorism, as I've been doing, might be a problem. With terrorism in it's normal sense, it sounds as if the horrific acts are perpetrated to obtain some strategic or political advantage, oh, like maybe the imposition of Wahabbi Islam worldwide. If it's a blood feud, on the other hand, the horrific act is its own justification.
From my own point of view, that of an infidel target, an effective response in either case has everything to do with elimination of the threat or the persons who present the threat. If it's a blood feud, then appeasement or acceptance, the desired approach of many, is just not going to increase our own safety.
Of course, if you aren't interested in increasing our own safety, you aren't one of us. And it might come down to the "one of us, one of them" kinds of distinctions.
As most members of either side of this conflict do not wear uniforms, I have a suggestion. My suggestion is that we should make identification easy. Good guys don't have beards. Even if the guy with a beard is a full college professor. Okay?
Now, let's shave and then let's get down to some serious feudin'.