A question for the board. How do you fight terrorism? Do you bomb a country? do you oust a regime? Terrorism is an idea not an nations army. You can cut off its funding (bomb countries, oust regimes) but in the end its that pretty little 18 yr old girl wearing an explosive belt that will getcha. How do fight an idea?

Not a single leader in this world has an answer to that question. What makes you think someone on this board does ? :D

Unfortunately I don't think they'll ever be a 100% elimination of Terrorism, but I think the best way to fight it is through education.
This next part is just speculation on my part, I have no facts to back them up, but based on where many (not all, just many) of the terrorists backgrounds, it looks like they are from backgrounds where a good education is not easily available (key word good, not just any education), and therefore, it's near impossible for them to get a good job and provide for their family. This leaves many feeling helpless and cheated when they see others living "the good life" so to say. They need someone to blame, whether it be their gov't, the US, the Jews, Christianity, etc. etc. And therefore, many turn towards terrorism as a way to feel like they have control of the situation.
Please understand, I am in no way condoning or justifying terrorism, I'm just stating a reason why some may turn to it. Not saying it's right, though. But, I think if we can do a better job of helping children and adults all over the world become better educated, and therefore, eliminating that feeling of being trapped, or at least minimizing it, I think there will be fewer terrorists out there.
Just my two cents.

Actually johnny ,to be honest I figure we probably have more brains in here than most the world leaders do! [img]smile.gif[/img] Just throwin out a question !

Harley, for your information, ALL the guys involved in the Sept.11 attacks were highly educated. They were all studying on universities abroad, which means they are not from poor families either. If you do some research on known terrorists, you'll find out they come from the wealthiest families, and went to the best schools all over the globe.

So much for that theorie. :D

<font color=green> alot of the terrorist see the freedoms in which we have and think it unholy. they see as that we are unholy beuase we don't follow thier god. its kinda like the whole jersulem thing in which the pakitans are trying to take back the "holy land". but don't get me wrong not all terrorist are arabic. look at the amercian who was found fighting witht he al-queda in afganistan. most of the peop-le are recruited at a young age and then pretty much brain washed by the people who are higher up. some are cells that go on with thier lives until one day they get called up to do something and they lived just like normal people until that day arrived.</font>

Johnny, re-read my post. I said in there NOT ALL, JUST MANY. MANY of the terrorists that bomb in Israel are NOT HIGHLY EDUCATED. I am saying this based on articles I've read and heard of interviews of the families of the suicide bombers.
I stick by my statement.
Also, going to a university, and being educated are completely different. What were there grades at these universities?
The study of Sociology teaches that when education level increases, the tendency towards violent crime decreases.

well if not violent crimes, even educated people ARE capable of doing crimes and other bad things. Enron. Watergate. Clinton's affairs. GW Bush wanting to remain in Iraq for another 5 years (yeah right! Not an army of occupation my b***!) ETC.

with fridge magnets! Terrorists fear our anti terrorism measures over here!

That may have some value as a rule of thumb for "ordinary" violent crime, but I very much doubt that to be the case for politically motivated crime, read terrorism.

As Johnny already pointed out the terrorists of 9/11 were well-educated members of the upper middle or even upper classes of their respective home countries.
Similarly, the radical leftish terrorists in Europe (Germany, Italy) of the 1970ies and 80ies used to be fairly well-educated and from middle class backgrounds. They fancied to be acting on behalf of the oppressed, yet unfortunately still unenlightened masses.

And in Palestine the suicide bombers might be young and uneducated, but I'd be surprised if that was also true for the majority of the ideologists/leaders of organisations like Hamas or Hizbullah.

After all, one basic concept behind terrorism is that an avant garde political elite commits the terrorists acts to provoke the attacked government/political system into overreacting in its response, thereby revealing its "true" oppressive, unjust, etc. nature to the still to a wider public, which will ultimately promote the political chances that the terrorists' ideology demands.

[ 06-24-2003, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Ramon de Ramon y Ramon ]

I never said it eradicates violent crime, only that it lessens the chance of it. I rarely, if ever, speak in terms of absolute. There's always exceptions to any rule and there's usually generalizations made.
Both my stance on education helping to eliminate terrorism and the teachings of sociology are, as I stated in those posts, generalizations, so arguing me by pointing out those that don't fit those generalizations make no sense, at least not to me, because I never said that my arguments were absolutes. I also stated that the comment about education was my opinion, not a fact.
I have no problem with people not agreeing with me, your just as free to your opinion as I am to mine, I just wish people would not act as if I had stated something as an absolute when I made sure to put in my post that I was NOT applying the statement to all.
Rant off. Thanks for listening. Someone distract Johnny so we can get his beer!!!

You dare touch my beer, and there will be one more terrorist to fear. :D

Damn, did i just come up with a good songtitle ?

I can understand terrorism in socio-economic terms. You can characterize it as a religion vs. other religions if you like, but the bulk of the beef terrorists have is with the socio-economic disparity between European-descending countries and all the darker-skinned peoples of the planet. When faced with what is tantamount to outright oppression, when faced with the hijacking of other cultures by consumerism, Pepsi and Brittney, Californication, and Disneyfication, when faced with liberalism so rampant it would be considered outlandishly offensive merely 25 years ago (even in the US), yet having it simultaneously crammed down your throat, and all in the face of the world's mightiest armies, WHAT DOES ONE DO? Form a rebellion, band all oppressed nations together and fight the infidel dogs? Not likely. Besides, we'd be stupid to assume all repressed folks can agree on common goals and means to achieve them, despite the fact they are all in the same boat right now.

In the face of such frustration, I think it is very understandable that one who loves his country, his people, and his ideology would be so valiant as to sacrifice his very existence in an act that just might whittle away at the oppressive culture. Whether these acts spark social reform within 1st-world nations that make them address the problems of disparity (e.g. Israili-Palestine peace talks) or whether they sow the seeds of social upheavel and outright rebellion in those oppressor nations, or whether they just make the oppressor nations try really hard to leave other nations the hell alone, the terrorist has achieved his goal to some small degree.

The problem the terrorist faces is that sometimes those oppressor nations behave just as irrationally as the terrorists do. Sometimes, they use a single awesome event of terror (9/11) to inspire an outright manhunt of the agents of terror, chasing them willy-nilly across the globe with all their technological might and even going on a near-crusade and toppling a few barely-related countries in the process. In these instances, the terrorist's goals are thwarted by the axiom: for every irrationalism, there is an equal and opposite irrationalism.

Now, being from the oppressor, rather than the terrorist, part of the world, the question becomes how to deal with those we subjigate. Well, we can make them love us and join us or fear us and cower -- or we can annihalate them altogether.

Love us:
1. Throw money at the problem. Use more of what the oppressed peoples hate -- Disney and Pepsi and Pokemon and video games -- to slowly break their will and assimilate them into the live-on-credit, drive-SUVs, waste-money, sue-others-for-all-your-ills people we all should be. This is the loooong road to change.

NOTE: on this issue, aside from "throwing money" and increasing the standard of living in these countries, one of the MOST EFFECTIVE tactics for long-term social reform is EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN. Honestly -- if anything in the post can be called sincere, this is it. Helps control the population too.

Fear us:
2. Topple a few countries, round up a bunch of terrorists. Execute them if you are lucky enough to live where the namby-pamby liberal path has not progressed so far as to make that legally intolerable. This is our path to date since 9-11.

Destruction:
Two varieties (as I see it)
1. Outright annihalation of all forms of radical Muslinism. A/k/a Crusades 2003, sponsored by Bud Light, coming to a desert near you. Use Iraq as a model. Enter, topple the government. Again, throw money at the problem as you are rebuilding the country. This is unlikely, and would spark open rebellion in oppressor nations due to the humanitarian concerns of the citizens. Some people simply prefer soft-oppressionism over hard-oppressionism. Serves the oppressor nations right -- they shouldn't have let their people get so spoiled, sensitive and namby-pamby to begin with.

2. Outright annihalation of fundamentalism. All religious-based governments are hereby outlawed. Be whatever religion you want, pray to Allah, Satan, or Anna Nicole the Fertility Goddess for all we care, but your government must be secular. Select another type of government, and we will send our tanks in and reboot and reinstall for you.

Anywho, some random thoughts. Hope they help. :D

[ 06-24-2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

The problem the terrorist faces is that sometimes those oppressor nations behave just as irrationally as the terrorists do. Sometimes, they use a single awesome event of terror (9/11) to inspire an outright manhunt of the agents of terror, chasing them willy-nilly across the globe with all their technological might and even going on a near-crusade and toppling a few barely-related countries in the process. In these instances, the terrorist's goals are thwarted by the axiom: for every irrationalism, there is an equal and opposite irrationalism.

Ok I hope Im reading this properly and excuse me if Im not but I dont agree with the terrorists being thwarted as you say. I think that the toppling of countries and regimes just adds fuel to their fire, reenforces their beliefs and gives them that much more reason to pull folks into their cause. I personally think that the world reacted and did exactly what Mr Bin Laden expected they would,(in the case of 911) thereby handing all that much more power to him.

I don't think anyone predicted the degree to which the USA has taken action against terrorism, especially extending its campaign to all states where terrorists do/can hide. Even if it was predicted, I don't think it has strengthened Bin Laden. New leaders are being captured everyday, some in just the last few days. I'm not claiming full success, I'm just saying that the reaction to 9/11 was not the typical reaction. In fact, it was much more akin to Israel's reaction.

Yes, maybe that does fuel the fire of anti-US sentiment. And certainly the terrorists would sacrifice their own organization's existence to drive the US to war with other Muslim countries. But, in the end that too would be self-defeating. Terrorists are forcing issues the countries and religions they claim to support are simply ill equipped to have forced.0

Irregardless, my general point was that your range of options are limited when addressing this problem. While there may be infinite steps you can take under each type of reaction, the number of TYPES of reactions is quite finite.

I was also pointing out that the proper way to view this is quite possibly one of subjigation. We are experiencing what every oppressive culture has experienced. And, whether we intend it or not, we do oppress those with weaker economies and cultures. It's simply the way it is. It hasn't gotten to the point where a "Master Mentality v. Slave Mentality" view or a Master/Slave relationship applies, but it is moving in that direction. In a hurry.

A random thought of my own: however unlikely it may seem but I managed to find a common denominator between DameonRules' and Timber's posts. The notion that terrorism is a phenomenon that first appeared in world history in 2001, or shortly before that.

Other than that, Timber, however thought-provoking your post sure is, it seems to me you might be overestimating the demonstrative hence educational value of the "grand theory of everything at the expense of a myriad of oversimplifications and sweeping generalizations"-approach. I'll grant you though that the entertainment value is considerable. ;)

*something very simplified coming across*

A wise sentence I once heard (IIRC it's from Gandhi): "A human must be willing to die for something but he also must not be willing to kill for something"

Now to my simplification:

Our western (oppressing) country's people prototype mostly lacks the ambition to die for a cause (may it be freedom, their country, their lover or just their fancy SUV) but DOES hesitate to kill for a cause (in Europe we do ;) )
The terrorist prototype is always willing to die for his cause but sadly also to kill for it.

I strongly believe that you can't extinct this threat with violence. Death Penalty is NOT a proper deterrent for suicide bombers.
What you can do by force (i.e. "Crusades" to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran) is damage large terrorist organizations and thus keep the problem away from the western hemisphere.
In short: Destroying Al-Quaeda will ensure that terrorist acts in the US, France, Germany, Spain, Canada, ... are minimized. It won't stop suicide bombers in Gaza or at embassies in Kenia.

According to my upper statements there are two ways of quelling terrorism.
1.)
Make people unwilling to kill:
To achieve that you need education as Harley noted correctly. And not any but "good" education. Good education does NOT mean a Ph.D, it means teaching people philosophy, religion or in short values like "life may no be taken deliberately by humans". EVERY major religion and philosophical movement teaches that "thou shalt not kill" (they also make the exception that there may be legal requirement to do so but that's another story).
You can train people to be highly skille pilots, sappers, doctors, lawyers, engineers,... and still NOT educate them. This is to be avoided.

2.)
Make people unwilling to die:
Like Timber said: Throw money at the problem. Once every Palestinian drives a Volvo they won't be willing to die anymore. Why should I die for "insert religious or political cause here" when I can still live a good life without a major change. The richer people get the more expensive get their lives (this is sad but true) and idealist who will throw away a well provided family life for the good of their country or their fellow men are rare.
So once people in Mali, Chechnya and Afghanistan start worrying about their retirement funds and stop worrying about getting food for tomorrow there'll be a lot less terrorists around.

There is of course the irrealistic way of combinig both. Providing people from the poor countries with education, leave their religious values mostly untouched AND support their economy to increase their quality of life -
but who would sew all these footballs then? Nike stocks would plummet and then we'd be poor. Ah - a vicious circle.

America’s home grown terrorist have access to good education. So I don’t buy that one and I don’t really buy the economic link.

I believe terrorism has its roots in fundamentalist religion. Any fundamentalist religion.

Currently most of us are thinking terrorist in connection with the middle east but lets be honest most terrorist attacks do not cross borders. Think of Oklahoma city and the columbine shootings and the Michigan militia. Look at what the people of Ireland have been doing to each other over generations.

America’s home grown terrorist have access to good education. So I don’t buy that one and I don’t really buy the economic link.

I believe terrorism has its roots in fundamentalist religion. Any fundamentalist religion.

Currently most of us are thinking terrorist in connection with the middle east but lets be honest most terrorist attacks do not cross borders. Think of Oklahoma city and the columbine shootings and the Michigan militia. Look at what the people of Ireland have been doing to each other over generations. </font>[/QUOTE]Ill agree that terrorism is NOT an issue of education, its an issue of religion. Its been said that more education is the key...well just what kind of education are we talking about here? And whos going to teach it? If your thinking that your going to teach a middle eastern country (ya Im gonna stick with those guys just for examples sake)that peace is a better way...good luck. Consider just for a second who we are talking about..a people who have had thier religions for longer than christianity has existed. Countries with history that goes back thousands of years. There is nothing that you can say that they want to listen to. These folks have never experienced peace,(well ok sporadically) or luxury or any sort of democratic society. Their entire society and lives revolve around religion and have for longer than North America has been populated by white folks. THEY DO NOT KNOW ANY DIFFERANT! Its hard to get someone exited about something they cant even visualize. Great Im ranting here. As for Columbine and Oklahoma City I wouldnt call that terrorism just some Screwed up ppl. Yes they were violent rampages but they had there own reasoning behind them they werent doing it "to clense the world of infidels"

Faceman, i don't think you can buy off the Palestinians hate towards Israel. Volvo's ? Yeah right... do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds ? Maybe they'll be happy if they get to drive it around in Jerusalem, without any Jews left in it, but other than that, i don't think this would be very realistic.

And you can't throw money at every problem, it hasn't the same value to everyone as it has to us. Bin Laden is from a very wealthy family in Saudi Arabia, yet he chose a long time ago NOT to go drive his Volvo, but live in a cave in Afghanistan to fight the Sovjets.

You're dealing with totally different people here, who we will probably never learn to understand. We didn't understand them 1000 years ago, and we still don't understand them today.

Sorry to drag this on, but tonight on TV, CBC newsworld was reporting on the raid and capture of I think it was 11 Palistinian militants by Isreali soldiers today. One of the wives of the captured militants told reporters "We are strong, We will keep having babies and they all will be martyrs"

I think this clarifys just HOW "totally differant" these people are.

The only religion in mid-east that's older than christianity is Judaism. Islam was founded in the 7th century. Every country's history goes back thousands of years. Some even with ancient high cultures. Where's your daily Japanese, Chinese, Aztec or Indian suicide bomber. Japan has not had a very peaceful history either still it's rather (not very) stable.

Bin Laden may be rich but he's a lunatic. These things happen. I also sincerely doubt that he would go on a suicide mission himself.

All religions are peaceful in general but also provide with rules for the necessity of war. Christianity is an exception here as it does not talk about war in the original texts. Crusades were only legitimated later by the popes in charge. Hinduistic Vedes have rather violent chapters too but you don't see Indian people blow themselves up in London.

Fundamentalistic terrorism has fundamentalists as a basis. To become a fundamentalist you have to be either crazy or desperate. Now there is a certain amount of crazy people everywhere but in these country there's also a whole lot of desperate people.
Terrorism like the Oklahoma bombing is also done by desperate people who have not been properly educated as to "killing is wrong - the cause does not matter for that".

Giving a suicide bomber a Volvo won't change his mind I agree with that. But giving everybody a Volvo will reduce the number of people who want to become a suicide bomber.

Your misconception is that for every Palestinian other than for normal people his foremost goal is to conquer Jerusalem. Wrong! The goal of a Palestinian like with every other person on this world is to give his life some sense. The problem is that the only realistically achievable option that is offered to him is the conquest of Jerusalem. So he makes it his foremost goal.
Arabs don't hate Israelis from their birth. They are told "Jews are bad" and the more bad things they experience (no matter from whom) the more of it they attribute to "the Jews" and nurture their hate.
If they had less to complain about (if only the weather was nicer) they would not have a cause for their hatred.
So I say again: Build up their economy/social structure! Only people who want to commit suicide can be suicide bombers.

Sounds like a country and western song to me :D

You try not to piss off anyone.

War against an abstract noun! Never easy.

While this is a nice Donut-esque funny one-liner (or is that two?), it also contains a ton of philosophical wisdom. Derrida teaches us that there are at least three intrinsic metaphysical conceits in the notion "War on Terrorism" (War, Terror, and TerrorISM), and that our whole concept of each of these conceits is wrapped up in a way of thinking that dates back to Father Plato, a way of thinking in terms of absolutes and opposites that constrains our ability to understand the very problem we seek to address. In short, our way of thinking that divides the world into terrorists/non-terrorists, war/peace, death/life, good/bad, etc. prevents us from understanding the causes, motivations, philosphy, and goals of terrorism.

Personally, I take Derrida and deconstructionism with a grain of salt, recognize it as a true but finicky point, set it aside as reductio ad absurdum, and move on with my beloved metaphysical conceits. (I also find his delimma well-solved by harkening back to dialectics.)

But, it nevertheless is very true that for all these reasons war against an abstract noun is never easy. ;)

No it isn't realistic, and especially not since they can't drive around in their Volvo's freely and without being stopped in Jerusalem anyway.
[img]tongue.gif[/img] Johnny they're not aliens, you wouldn't have much more difficult to understand a Arab than anybody else. They've just grown up in a society that is a bit more rigid and old-fashioned than ours.

Being a fundamentalist doesn't automatically mean that you are crazy or desperate, it's just a way to look on a religion or political idea. It means that you tend to intrepet events described by, for example, a holy scripture more literally and not as debatable or symbolic ones

more like an opening line ;p

When did I say every palistinian wants to conquer anything? Im mearly trying to point out that these people THINK differant than us. (us being folks that dont live in those sort of conditions)I think when a mother is breeding children for the sole purpose of sending those children out with a bomb belt it tells you that they DO think differant. And of course Palistinians dont hate Isrealis from birth...Predjudice is a learned trait no matter how you slice it. And guess what..they have been "learning" it for generations. The majority of the populace Im sure wants peace and an end to hostilities but the militants are the ones running the show and it sure seems to me they dont want peace. If they had less to complain about they would not have cause for there hatred....that is SO not the point. A volvo, caddy, hummer and a lear jet sitting in the driveway was not gonna make that mother change her mind about sending her kids to suicide school.The only complaining they are doing is saying they are an oppressed people, so how you gonna fix THAT so they arent "complaining? And the only way they will appreciate and be proud of a better economy/social structure is if build it themselves!

Gnarf...thats the best solution Ive heard so far

Gnarf's solution works better in theory than in practice. In the real world, it's impossible. :shrug:

Ya TL I know it is, but wouldnt it be nice if everyone could mind their own buisness and get along?

So you're telling me that this mother would still bring up her child to be a suicide bomber even if there was the opportunity for him to go to college and become a well respected member of his society?
I don't think so. All people - may it be in the US in Europe or in Afghanistan - are looking for a purpose in their life.
The main problem is that there is so little choice for people in the poor countries and that martyrdom seems the easy way out.
I am strongly convinced that if there was a solution to the poor living conditions in these countries terrorism would be minimized. I'm not saying it would be extinct. People still bear hatred and with some it would overcome their joy of a better life. But it would be on the decrease and people would stop to bring up their children with the hatred they now have no more use for thus decreasing the problem further.
I am very well aware that the solution is NOT to donate everybody a truckload of Coke and a Chevy Blazer. This is why I said I would *simplify* in my first post. It's about having a life you (or the hopefully-not-to-be-terrorist) consider worth living and therefore hesitating to kill yourself and others.
Happy people seldomly kill.
Of course there is a minority who does NOT want to come to an agreement in every conflict. The issue at hand is that it is not overruled by the majority but rather followed by them because they are the only ones who promise a solution.
What I'm trying to say is: A Volvo won't convince Bin Laden but what is he going to do alone when all his countrymen are driving off to the mall in their Volvos instead of bombing a market in TelAviv (again I am aware that the thought of shopping malls and Volvos in the Westbank is unrealistic and ridicolous - bear with me, it's just a metaphor)

[ 06-25-2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

Every thing I say on here is an IMO. But hey, isnt that what a message board is for? [img]smile.gif[/img]
1)Do I think she would still bring her child up as a suicde bomber?...Yes.
2)All people - may it be in the US in Europe or in Afghanistan - are looking for a purpose in their life.....No....people in third world countries are looking for food not purpose. (Afghanistan example)
3)The main problem is that there is so little choice for people in the poor countries and that martyrdom seems the easy way out....No...martyrdom is not an "easy way out",they arent killing themselves because of a jilted love or they owe a bookie ten thousand dollars. Its a belief that their dying will better thier cause (whatever that cause may be). THIS is their life purpose that you keep refering to.
4)People still bear hatred and with some it would overcome their joy of a better life. But it would be on the decrease and people would stop to bring up their children with the hatred they now have no more use for decreasing the problem further....again I disagree ... The people that still bear the hatred would continue to launch attacks against thier enemies---> therefore...there would (in the Isreali/Palistinian conflict) continually be counter attacks---> therefore... it will only perpetuate the hatred that has been going on for generations.
The western world has been trying to wipe out predjudice and hatred against blacks, asians, Pakistanis, etc..for longer than my lifetime and we live in a more "fortunate" part of the world with a "better life". If we cant do it here what makes you think they can do it there when thier Hatred runs deep enough that they will sacrifice their own children in the name of thier cause? A better lifestyle will not solve any problems. IMO

That's why we should give them food (i.e. better economical possibilities to make the food issue resolvable)

They are killing themselves because they have no food and consider themselves oppressed which they believe will stop for their children/fellow men if they continue their attacks.

We CAN do it here. There is still SOME hatred, there are still people who lynch Afro-Americans, there are still people who kill immigrants because they hate them so unbelievably much but these people are less than they were some decades ago.
If you'd asked white Americans what they thought of black Americans in 1960
and if you ask them now I think you'll notice a change towards the better.


You are right that as long as there are counter-attacks the conflict will not stop. But once one side reduces the attacks the other will too naturally.
If there is proper education children are not only brought up by their parents but by their teachers too and that could make (at least I pray it could) a difference.
I agree that you can't convince a fanatic but you CAN convince people before they become fanatic and this is what IMO has to be done to ensure lasting quell of terrorism/fanatism.
I agree however that a major problem is that in these countries killing has not been outlawed socially as it has been in our countries.
There has been a whole lot of terrorism in Europe of the 1920ies and it all changed for the worse when governments that resorted mainly to violence (namely Hitler in Germany, Dollfuss in Austria, franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy, ...) took over. But with sensible governments who seek non-violent solutions terrorism will decrease IMO.

I see a lot of confusion here about the term "terrorist." It seems to be a much broader term now than it was five years ago.

Terrorism could be stopped and most likely will, but humans as a species need to evolve a lot further before that ever happens.

The majority of terrorists or 'suicide bombers' aren't doing it because they have nothing better to do, or because they don't have a Volvo! [img]smile.gif[/img] Terrorism is a form of war, it just never got encompassed into that whole "declaration of war" thing. The suicide bomber sees his death as an hounorable sacrifice and most if not all are happy to die in the name of their God, and there in lies the problem. Religion.

The nature or root of the majority of terrorist acts lie in religous confilct, not physical or material possessions or the lack of. Material possesions mean nothing to these people, they've never had them, they don't know what they are, and they couldn't give a skinny rat's ass if the ever have them.

Exactly what Ive been trying to say Animal. I think Im going to have to take some sort o course to improve my "point getting across" abilities!

I might be wrong here, but I don't think that any mothers would breed/raise their sons (and sometimes daughters) to become suicide-bombers or terrorist. As a matter of fact, mothers are the most protective people I know of. To become a suicide-bomber or a terrorist is a choice made by the individual and not their parents. The fact that Hamas offers economic aid to their families makes would-be bombers think that they're helping out their folks in the process as well.
Hunger doesn't make people terrorists, just thieves at most.
On the contrary it would. By better lifestyle I don't mean giving them Volvo's or anything, rather to give them the chance to be normal citizens like you and me; to give them a decent chance of getting a job, to make them able to drive around freely ( in their Volvo's :D )without being stopped by soldiers at every crossroad and giving their children a chance to go to school regularly.
As I posted somewhere here before; they're not aliens, their mind doesn't function differently from ours. I can almost bet a dollar, no two dollars, that they have exactly the same hope and dreams like any of us. Circumstances have made them make the decisions they do and neither you nor me can guarantee that we wouldn't do what they do if we were in their shoes.

On a interresting sidenote here, I saw a documentary, on Discovery IIRC, where they claimed that most suicide bombers weren't very religious to begin with, they were just rootless and a bit suicidal teens who were fed up with their own situation and the terrorist organizations offered them an alternative.

On a interresting sidenote here, I saw a documentary, on Discovery IIRC, where they claimed that most suicide bombers weren't very religious to begin with, they were just rootless and a bit suicidal teens who were fed up with their own situation and the terrorist organizations offered them an alternative. </font>[/QUOTE]Depends on the organisation in question. I stand by my original assesment.