Isn't this better assessed through a feedback model? Those who tend to fight "justly" have better prospects for cooperation or winning over the enemy whereas those who don't never inspire trust and therefore never cull collaboration due their unpredictable and ruthless nature. Unpredictable forces the other parties to be also more cunning, and in the end you paint yourself into a corner like the outed Saddam in his last days: having multiple doubles to avoid being assassinated. 
 
Maybe, like in the Philips curve in economics, there's an inflection point of diminishing returns of "ruthlessness" - which must be why old timers have intuited the "carrots and sticks" dual strategy.  
 
Ruthlessness may seem superficially more attractive but it is in the end an extreme position and as such prone to be fruit of unchecked passions. Romans had the famous adage - specifically emphasized for those in ruling positions in combat - that those who can't rule themselves - i.e. rein in their fears, keep composure and stay in command - can't rule others.  
 
Why would so many nations go to these lengths to invent all this intricate soldiering technology - starting with "uniforms" whose purpose is to tell "warriors" from "civilians" - if this simple truth of the power dynamics weren't the biggest obstacle to power consolidation? 
 
As for Lebanon, the fighting seems so ruthless because the more desperate the situation the more propaganda is used to make it appear worse than it is to convince those on one's side that it is justified to go to extreme lengths because the other side deserves it. The real desperation of that war is not necessarily the actual destruction and devastation - which may not be as big compared to say the situation in Dresden in WWII. It's the "blood feud", the interminable inter-tribal hatred that feeds on itself.

I believe a foundational problem of legality is at stake here. 
 
Note that Nazra emphasizes one thing: that the Qur'an is "law", not just the word of God as in "his various and sundry ideas on earthly matters".  
 
Why is this significant? 
 
In the Judeo-Christian West, there's this fundamental notion of a "covenant". This is critical because the discussion of "free will" is almost absent from the Islamic fiqh. Islam has a schizoid attitude on God's will as determinism: if humans are unable to challenge His will, than why worry about enforcing rules of conduct? If, however, Man *can* - and does - sin, then obviously we need law enforcement. But then, what is the meaning of Man's "will"? 
 
This is not just a complicated philosophical issue. It is fundamental. 
 
What makes a man a thief is using "force" to acquire something that "belongs" to someone else without that someone else's "consent". In other words, for acts to have a claim to legitimacy, it must involve the consent - "willful" adherence - of two parties. 
 
Same thing with rape. Same thing with assault. Whichever crime you turn to, what underlies it is the commitment of some act against the "will" - in the absence of the consent - of one party. 
 
This is the foundational problem of legality: a moral principle must be based on consent. 
 
This is also where positive law - e.g. of the Napoleonic variety - fails. Law cannot be just what those who control the law-making process say. No amount of "positivist" law-making theory will legitimize a law that legalizes rape, for instance. 
 
In other words, enforcing sanctions against the violation of consent is not positive law, therefore criticizing the violation of "natural rights" is not crying blasphemy. To claim that is to ignore the neo-Darwinian models that try to explain the emergence of moral principles. 
 
This means, despite the endless yammerings of conservatives - especially "transcendentalist" ones - there is no fundamental difference between contract law and other parts of legality. Not legal principle can be legitimate and binding unless the parties consent to it. Or, conversely, nobody will consent to a contract if it is fundamentally in violation of our human nature and reality (those givens that some erroneously call "transcendental"). 
 
For example, despite assertions to the contrary, no mother has an obligation to carry of raise a child that happens to be fruit of a rape, and everyone intuitively will recognize this as an acceptable waiver if she declines to mother that child. 
 
In civil code, the most fundamental principle of contracts is, again, consent. A shot-gun contract is null and void by definition. 
 
This is where the notion of a covenant enters the picture - and also where the anti-libertarian (or anti-cla
More....

Sorry for the blank link. Here it is.

By the way: I'm more freaked out by the stuff that hornerts can do - see Fred Reed's account here.

I think self-deception must be qualified here. 
 
Religious people self-deceive in a very naive, transparent way. For example, if you say prayer x n times, the lord will hear your pleadings; or if you donate 10% of your wealth annually, more wealth will come to you. 
 
In the case of high-g cases, the deception is more intricate and goes much deeper. Think of the sophistry - that spectacular bullshit - of the Derridaesque variety. 
 
Here's what I have in mind - probably on a naive two-cent note:  
 
In survival terms, believing in the religious kinda deception may be a motivator to keep seeking and exploring remote possibilities in a plodding fashion. Think of this scenario (admittedly very simplistic): you're in a trough or hole in a jungle, you're surrounded by wild predators - say a pack of wolves - and in a few moments you'll be their lunch. A military software with stochastic decision algorithms may consider that scenario as "combat lost", but for the living being, exploring even the most remote possibility - such as trying to cull the wolves with funny gestures, etc. (maybe the cognitive activity of "praying" in such desparate situations is cognitively linked with triggering some emergency problem-solving routines?) - may still be a bet. 
 
The "deconstructionist" kinda bullshitting, or "acting" - the mind-boggling current scale of which Michael observes correctly - is more geared towards duping other members of the species, and more often than not for pushing "parasitic" kinda agenda.

Razib: What, in your assessment - as a tough headed empiricist - proof do you have to show that the planes were actually hi-jacked and that they were hi-jacked by Arab males? Other than what's been shown on TV, for example? 
 
Just an innocent question! Nothing to do with "supporting Muslims" or anything.