Taliban also runs schools that teach children to be suicide bombers.
Filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy showed this in a documentary "Inside a school for suicide bombers":

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sharmeen_obaid_chinoy_inside_a_school_for_suicide_bombers.html

[Deleted for profanity.]

ChrisPer

I don’t think this is a sympathetic presentation, I think it’s an honest attempt to understand why people blow themselves up for a cause, and how they perceive themselves and other like them. However much we may loathe the bombers, their causes and their methods, if we’re to counter them we need to know what motivates them. We can throw labels like “fanatic” at them, but that is not going to help us overcome them.

Evil deeds are often committed by people who believe their motives and actions to be noble and virtuous. To recognise this does not imply that they ARE noble and virtuous.

It is a bit of a stretch to present altruism as the motivating force behind suicide bombings although that faulty mindset might prevail within those terrorist groups. Altruism should be judged on outcomes not dogma.

The manipulation of an uneducated and usually poor prospect into religious zealotry and hatred that lead to suicide bombings is not an altruistic act. It serves another agenda entirely.

What would better serve is education and not the sort that would be obtained in a Madrasa.

Suicide bombings packaged as altruism - whatever next.

People seem to forget that the Taliban had stopped the production of heroine in Afghanistan in 2000 hence there was a drug drought.Now under the auspices of the Us Govt produces 90% of the world's heroine.

Iran was a lie.There were no weapons of mass destruction and now the neo cons want to take Iran's oil.Afghanistan we learn has $trillions of resources and will be the main route for oil/gas pipelines from Turkmenistan.

Who could possible believe the outrageous conpiracy theory that 19 hi-jackers could beat the most powerful military machine on the planet,and plant explosives in all 3 buildings weeks before without anyone knowing.No that is a ridiculus conspiracy theory.

It is a bit of a stretch to present altruism as the motivating force behind suicide bombings although that faulty mindset might prevail within those terrorist groups. Altruism should be judged on outcomes not dogma.
Pelican,
you're right on that one in my book. Isn't it just absolutely amazing what society can do when it is on a long slippery slide to destruction. A bit like the west is doing it now when one looks at it closely. Just look at all the great civilisations & how they faltered. The egyptians, the Maya, the Inka, the many highly developed cultures of the East. All down the tube. We're next. Why ? Because of too much focus on wrong education. Instead of levelling out when we reached the plateau of what society can achieve, we reach out for higher & higher, not accepting the obvious limits. We can't even accept natural demise anymore, we try to live past our use by date only to be a handicap to those who are supposed to take over. We just became too selfish as a society & now we're arriving at payback time. A suicide bomber is no less intelligent than the businessman who wants more growth. Both are brainwashed beyond recovery.

Come on you lot, stop trying to hide the ugly truth.

You all know it's the only way most of them are even going to meet a virgin, in this life or the next, let alone touch one.

Arjay says:
<<<People seem to forget that the Taliban had stopped the production of heroine in Afghanistan in 2000 hence there was a drug drought.Now under the auspices of the Us Govt produces 90% of the world's heroine.>>>

Arjay seems to have swallowed the urban myth ( something he has a propensity to do ) that the Taliban were /are anti-Heroin crusaders --other sources indicate otherwise:

“We are growing more poppy this year than ever before,” said Hamidullah, a farmer in Musa Qala. “The Taleban tell us ‘as long as we are here, no one can destroy your poppy’. The government cannot come here now, because there is another power here. It is the government of the Taleban.” “I am growing poppy, and now I am happy,”
http://iwpr.net/report-news/living-under-taleban

--“But Taleban do not deny that they are supportive of the crop. And there is growing evidence that it is Taleban forces who are the most actively engaged in battling eradication efforts.”
http://iwpr.net/report-news/helmand-heads-record-poppy-harvest

"The Baz Mohammad Organization was closely aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and allegedly provided financial support to the Taliban in Afghanistan. In exchange for this support, the Taliban provided the Baz Mohammad Organization with protection for its opium crops, heroin laboratories, drug-transportation routes, and members and associates. From 1994 through 2000, ESSA and his co-conspirators collected heroin proceeds in the United States for the Taliban."
http://thesop.org/story/law/2007/05/12/dea-arrest-of-taliban-linked-afghan-heroin-trafficker.php

And this is an account of their activities in their heyday:
“By the end of 200, al-Qaeda contributed around 30 percent to 40 percent of the Taliban’s core military forces. Al-Qaida’s investments, including bi Laden’s personal venture in the transregional trafficking of goods and NARCOTICS , created a lucrative network that increasing investment by other Arab princes and personalities, including some Pakistani military officers , regional politicians and businesses.”
[ Neamatollah Nojumi –The Rise and Fall of the Taliban –p113]

Still, I guess that : [if] “ you don't have the intellectual capacity,or have other agendas”
It makes some sense to follow along the well beaten path of an urban myth.

All fanatics blow themselves up one way or another, it is only when they are with one of their own kind, that they are in company who thinks they are sane, otherwise their companies would wish they would go and blow themselves up.

Well, I can see all the thinkers are out…out of town!!

What constitutes a suicide bomber? The disenfranchised. That does NOT mean the uneducated, but in contrast, the educated that includes university students, professionals AND some of the uneducated also.

What does disenfranchised mean? Look it up!

How did America resolve the suicide bombings of Lebanon when America occupied Lebanon in the 1970’s? They pulled-out of Lebanon and the suicide bombings miraculously stopped. Do ya thunk if America pulled-out of Iraq and Afghanistan the suicide bombings against Westerners would stop? Good chance!

Do ya thunk that “sovereignty” might be the altruistic issue sold to the disenfranchised in a Third World stone–age society when they are invaded by the technologically advanced West? Could be.

Do ya thunk suicide bombing would be a viable form or retaliation living in a Third World country invaded by the technologically advanced West? Do ya thunk it might be marginally more effective than throwing rocks at tanks? Could be!

You may return to sleep Einsteins.

Wake-up to the BS you are being spoon-fed, and gobbling-up like it's your last meal! America and us ARE the aggressors in this conflict, not the other way around.

Or, let me put it this way...what possible benefit could a stone-age country get, with no infrastructure or capacity to mount and move an army, from attacking a country like America?!? What? We're attacking the dumbest people on Earth?!? Sorry, but it's the other way around...the dumbest people on Earth believe a Third World country attacked them. And why do they believe that? Because we all watch TV and saw 9/11 from 50 camera angles. And despite all the evidence to the contrary, believe that a plane hit the Pentagon, despite there being NO wreckage, NO aluminium from the "plane", NO jet engines, and a round hole, that turned into a square hole after 30 minutes, and more of the building exterior collapsed.

If we were having a conversation about how visually oriented we are, we would be discussing all of the misinterpretations of events seen. But not with 9/11.

Most of us are aware of the reasons behind terrorism. It is retaliation for real and perceived wrongs and dishonest foreign and economic policy.

Most of us are also aware of the culpability of the West in creating the conditions that lead to disenfranchisement and possible terrorist reprisals. The West has to take responsibility as well and not wrap their motives up in patriotic altruism.

The view from both sides is wrong.

Arjay,

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next bloke but

<Who could possible believe the outrageous conpiracy theory that 19 hi-jackers could beat the most powerful military machine on the planet,and plant explosives in all 3 buildings weeks before without anyone knowing. No that is a ridiculus conspiracy theory.>

Arjay, who could possibly believe the outrageous conspiracy theory that ANYBODY could plant explosives in all 3 buildings [250 floors @ one tonne per floor = 250 tonnes = 25 truckloads; + let's say 100 handlers, drivers, placement experts over a couple of months] without any of the 24/7 employees or security staff noticing ?

And WHY wire up the third building, if no plane was going to crash into it - how to explain that in your world ?

If it was the CIA, do you mean that Colin Powell orchestrated it all ? Including the missile up Rumsfeld's @rse into the Pentagon ?

So how many people are we talking about who would have been involved in:

* organising the planes that hit the twin towers,

* and the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania,

* and procuring the missile that was fired into the Pentagon ?

And nobody spills the beans ? This is the Americans we're talking about, remember.

Sorry, I don't have that much respect for the competence of the CIA, which would have trouble raffling a chook in a Bankstown pub.

Arjay, the world is not made up just of puppets and a hierarchy of puppet-masters. There ARE people out here who can think for themselves, for good and for evil as well: all manner of groups have their own idiosyncratic agendas.

Yes, I have talked with my regular Jehovah's Witness visitor who tells me that the greatest trick of Satan is to convince people that he doesn't exist, so please don't go down that path all over again. Join the real world, warts and all, incompetents and all, weird personal and group agendas and all.

Mind you, I still think it was the Swedes.

@Loudmouth, actually, the chief engineer in charge of the clean-up of the WTC has also disputed the validity of the US government’s story, but his evidence has been bombarded with cries of “conspiracy theory” by the ignorant and those who have interests in the event. He too detected the presence of Thermite in the building wreckage, which should not have been present at all!

Just because we are bombarded with BS, doesn’t mean that people with authority, education and understanding of these things are not shouted down.

Let me put it this way…prior to the WTC, it was a regular event to see an industrial chimney or sky-scraper demolished, and those pictures shown on the nightly news, with narration explaining the precise science of demolishing an industrial chimney or sky-scraper upon itself. Strangely, since 9/11, when two aircraft hit the WTC at random points on the buildings, such news has been deemed as not interesting to the public anymore. Nor suddenly, is the collapsing of a building upon itself considered to be a precise science…by whom? The ignorant that believe any BS out of the “idiot box” that is bombarded and repeated enough to them, and the naïve that refuse to believe that their own government could do such a thing, that’s who. If we watched the same event in Russia, we would all cry conspiracy of the Russian government. But because it’s America and our governments involved, it can’t be a conspiracy. Idiots!!

Thanks, Mindless Cruelty,

Presumably the thermite would have been blowing all over New York in the dust, and even now is sitting on many window ledges ?

How much does a 110-storey building weigh ? Long ago, perhaps in the eighties or nineties, I read how the twin towers were able to be built using such a light and fragile framework, to allow them to be the tallest buildings in the world, but even so, each floor would have some weight. Not surprisingly on that basis, the second tower hit was the first to fall, since it was hit much lower down (or is that all just video tricks, MC ?) Supposing each floor weighs, say a thousand tonnes, then the weakening of the structure by intense heat (no, not melting, just weakening) at that floor level would have (110 -X) times 1000 tonnes of mass above it, then falling 4 metres onto the floor below, etc. It's not rocket science.

On the other hand, being possessed of a death-wish, the Republican-dominated CIA could have demolished two New York landmarks - that would have got up a lot of Democrat noses - but why ? Were they trying to incite New Yorkers to secede ? Or rise up in a 15-million-strong angry mob, and carry most of the USA with them ? Who could possibly believe that ? Idiots !!

Most Muslim suicide bombers mostly seem to keep their activities "in house". That is to say most of their victims are fellow Muslims.

One wonders what sort of "altruism" prompted this:

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Religious-Minorities-Attacked-in-Pakistan-23-Killed-102149684.html

Pelican

We rightly excoriate the Catholic Church for their child-abuse. What goes on in Madrassahs also seems to be a form of child-abuse.

In 1978, Jim Jones, of the Peoples Temple, convinced around 900
of his followers to commit mass suicide in Jonestown, Guyana.

Why did they do it? Religions, cults etc, are hardly based
on the rational. People in a state of high emotion, will do
things which they later regret, if that is possible. That
is exactly why around 100'000 people a year in the US are
shot by guns, of which 20'000 die. The gun is handy, somebody
flies into a rage, the rest is history!

The stronger an emotion, the less we reason.

I have yet to meet a religious fanatic who approaches life from
a rational perspective. So why do we think that they will
act rationally?

Further examples of "altruism"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/25/taliban-poison-attack-girls-school

My initial post was deleted for a very hostile tone. I will therefore restrict myself by saying that all terrorists probably believe they are behaving altruistically. Terrorist enablers provide the writing that cons them into thinking this, and this author should be charged with inciting and enabling. There is no ground for sympathy or respect for the kind of people that blow up women and children in the streets and markets.

For instance, when women suicide bombers started showing up in Palestine, it turned out that the terrorists were raping them, then offering a suicide bombing mission to restore their family's honour.

When intellectually handicapped children were used as suicide bombers, was this altruism? This is the 'altruism' of the terrorist organisers.

ChrisPer

We associate "altruism" with something good. A doctor who joins Doctors without Borders is being altruistic.

But during World War 2 most sooldiers in the German Wehrmacht fought bravely. In many cases they behaved altruistically in the sense that they risked, and sometimes gave, their lives to save their comrades.

Even members of the Waffen SS showed altruism in that sense.

But their cause was rotten.

So it is with suicide bombers

@Yabby...nitpick...the Jonestown mass "suicide" that you referred to, was more of a mass murder, than mass suicide. The poison they all consumed was forced upon the majority of the "followers". Forensic scientists were able to establish this fact, though admittedly, this information wasn't released until long after the event. I just happen to remember watching a documentary about it. I work in mental health, so these sorts of events are of interest to me.

@Loudmouth, I apologise for two things...the aggressive tone of my post, and the use of the word "idiots". I got out of the wrong side of bed yesterday, and vented my spleen inappropriately. Again, sorry.

Formalities dispensed with, I am interested to know if you believe we are involved in a "just" war, or not. If so, why, or if not, why? From your post, I got the impression that you are a New Yorker, is that correct? And if so, then I need to make a third apology for my gross insensitivity.

If you are interested, I'd like to discuss/debate our differing perspectives and observations, and I promise to try to maintain a measured tone.

Cheers.

Hi MC,

I'm from Adelaide. I presume you mean Afghanistan ? I guess this is why so much turns on who did what on 9/11:

* Story A: 19 al Qaida fanatics trained to fly large planes, then boarded and took over four planes, three of which they flew into iconic US buildings, one crashing in Pennsylvania. Al Qaida being harboured by the Taliban, the Khilafa-oriented regime in Afghanistan, the US could have done nothing and risked further attacks; instead the US launched an invasion to defeat al Qaida and the Taliban and remove further threats. There is an element of Greek tragedy about this story.

* Story B: for obscure reasons, the US government (or some agency within it)(or the Jews)(or the Swedes) wired up three large buildings with (?) thousands of tonnes of high explosives, and either tricked somebody to fly planes into the twin towers, or fabricated a hologram, or otherwise doctored videos, to give the impression that planes had flown into the buildings: they actually blew them up. They (whoever they were) procured a missile and fired it into the Pentagon, killing senior staff. They then pinned the blame for all of this on a non-existent organisation (which actually does good work feeding the poor) based in peaceful Afghanistan and used all of this as a pretext to invade.

So is the war in Afghanistan a just war ? IF Story A is accurate, there is some inevitability about the whole process. IF the Taliban allowed al Qaida to prepare and launch their attacks, then under international law, the US had the right to invade Afghanistan to remove any future threat.

[TBC]

[cont]

Of course, once they had done that, other processes were set in train, the partial liberation of women, the introduction of US-style democratic institutions, girls' schools, etc. But once they had got that going, in fact the more it got going, the more vicious Taliban retribution is bound to be if they ever take power again: if the US pulled out, the massacre of women would rival Rwanda, if only to terrorise other women to get back into the home and stay there: 'The only place for a woman is either in the house or in the grave'.

So, like it or not, as long as al Qaida attacks continue anywhere in the world, and as long as a returned Taliban is likely to harbour al Qaida and other entities again, the US has to stay in Afghanistan. As a socialist, I'm not happy about any of this, but prefer it to the neo-medieval alternative:

Imagine if the Yanks pulled out of that part of the world: most of the countries in the region are very unstable, including China's western colonies, its New Frontier area (Xinjiang). How long before the Taliban would seek to extend the Caliphate to Kyrgyzistan, to Uzbekistan, of course Pakistan ? To Iran, Russia ?

I'd predict that if the Yanks pull out, the Chinese would have to take their place, for their own security, perhaps with Russian and Iranian assistance.

As a side-issue, yes, they all want access to Afghan resources, oil, rare earths, iron ore, etc. But the main issue is still going to be the defeat of the Taliban and the denial of the country to al Qaida. Just or not, it's going to be a long and messy war.

Joe

G’day Loudmouth, “I'm from Adelaide. I presume you mean Afghanistan ? I guess this is why so much turns on who did what on 9/11”

(I’m in Sydney)

Well, it starts in Afghanistan, travels to Iraq, and now has a returning focus upon Afghanistan. For me, the two are inseparable.

A conspiracy is only like-minded people working towards a common goal, while keeping that agenda secret. And we all conspire…have you never been to a surprise birthday party or worked with like-minded people against un-like-minded people in a workplace situation…such as a union meeting? It’s not people with blueprints in dark rooms as some like to envision. And to think that like-minded people do not have discussions in the corridors of power is just ridiculous. Power is a club, not a free-for all.

Your scenario (A) was what was basically given on the news, except you neglected to mention that those 19 terrorists were described as Saudi’s. Taliban wasn’t mentioned immediately, for no-one had actually put their hand up to claim responsibility. War was declared before the word “Taliban” was mentioned.

Scenario (B) presumes too much fiction and rather grotesque manipulation of events, rather than the subtle manipulation of key-players from which events unfold. The whole point of political manipulation is to be subtle, not just to make the sale, but to sell enough to ensure those that detect the subtleties and aren’t sold, are out-numbered by the sold. (That’s why we love democracy, and strangely, why tyrants eliminate the intelligentsia). There’s an art to political manoeuvring, that’s why so few people are good at it…how do you think they got a peanut like GWB into the White House? It took 3 years before he had a press conference, for heaven’s sake, because he was so inarticulate! They didn’t want him talking without cue-cards! And if you ever saw him talking off-the-cuff, you would surely understand why.

TBC…

So I’m not about to make wild accusations as to what parties were possibly involved in a “conspiracy”. But what I can point out are some inconsistencies and some people that had obvious pecuniary interests and are key-players, that there’s a far more complicated and bigger picture with a longer history than meets the eye, as well as there being some contradictions of logic, that makes the story told appear conspiratorial…admittedly, especially the way I tell it.

The trouble is, this will be lengthy, so how about I start with Bush Jr. and Snr, the Industrial Military Complex and the corridors of power, and we’ll work from there.

If you agree with the adage, that “real power stands behind the throne”, then you gotta ask yourself what power would want a peanut like GWB sitting on the throne? And one must conclude, only a power that wants to control the throne. Who might that be? Well, by sheer coincidence, his team was the same team his father, ex-President, ex-Vice president to Reagan, and ex-Director of the CIA, George Bush Snr had of Cheney and Rumsfeld, with Colin Powell giving them political credibility with the US Army, and the general public for his impeccable reputation (if you remember, he resigned after giving the speech about WMD’s at the UN, for when he discovered it to be BS, he felt his reputation had been used and tarnished by the Bush administration).You might even remember that during the first 4-6 months of GWB’s presidency, dad went wherever GWB went, introducing GWB to his friends and associates.

The US wasn’t following any agenda other than dad and his cohort’s agenda, and GWB was the idiot son to speak the BS. And dad has long ties with the Industrial Military Complex through his personal interests in oil, he’s a Texan, and his involvement with the CIA, the Reagan administration and “Irangate”, as well as setting Saddam up in power and giving him WMD’s to drop on Iran after they held 38 US embassy officials hostage for about 100 days back in the 80’s.

TBC…

You see, as Vice President to Reagan, AND ex-director of the CIA, he could not have been naïve to any of this, but on the contrary, instrumental. The first Gulf War when he became President was an extension of this already complicated wheeling and dealing under the table for arms, oil, resources and influence in the region both personally and politically. Of this, George Bush Snr has been a key player for a very long time. Unlike his son GWB, he is a very bright and shrewd individual…you do not become Director of the CIA because you’re an idiot, but because you are highly intelligent, skilled and ruthless.

But any idiot can win the presidency…watch the next two elections in the US, when Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin hit the campaign trail! Jeb is currently Governor of Texas, and what’s in Alaska where Sarah hails from?? A lot of un-tapped oil is what. My prediction...Jeb for President with Sarah as Vice President on the same ticket put forward by the Republicans. Possibly the other way around, but another Bush in the White House, would again give the corridors of power and the Industrial Military Complex a lot more control and a sense of stability with a return to the status quo, and they would try to rid themselves of the Health plan the Democrats have put in, and re-direct it to the military, which means they’ll find reason to be threatened, for the weapons of war must be used…they are consumable products, and companies that manufacture these things would go broke If they weren’t consumed, they require repeat business! So it’s utilized in “national interests” for resources and geo-political influence for those resources. The US spends more of a percentage of its GDP on its military, than any other country on the planet. It’s trillions of dollars EVERY YEAR. We cannot escape this indisputable fact of the powerful influence to foreign and domestic policy this is.

And THAT has more to do with how nominees are selected for the public to vote upon.

TBC...

Without going into the bits and pieces MC, I do believe you hit the bull in the eye in your overview of the power trail and the reasons and ramifications of it. A Jeb/Sarah ticket, you've got a hide, telling horror stories to us before bedtime, I know my nights sleep is shot.

Mindless Cruelty,

Thanks, I don't disagree with anything much you have written, it reinforces my point that the Yanks are not the sharpest tools in the box. Only I'm a bit flummoxed what it all has to do with 9/11 ? I suppose you are leading up to that :)

And I wouldn't swallow the US propaganda that Iraq was involved with al Qaida: Saddam had his own small links to terrorist groups in Lebanon and Palestine, links which were invariably based on his ideology, which was more nationalist/Arabist than Islamist and certainly not Salafist. There is more than one way to be a fascist.

I think a more relative question would be;
Why do we allow these cultures into our country, knowing full well what some from within are capable of?

Obama is merely a ripple. He’s a reflection of how the average American can articulate their disgust with how they have been led like puppets by a marionette, at the polls. Consequently he is an articulate and intelligent man, but the Republicans will attempt to usurp him and/or his government’s credibility in the next elections, but the following one is where the Republicans have a home-run, as Obama can’t run again, and unless there’s a second coming between now and then, the Democrats don’t have the talent to present to keep the mood of the people. The Republicans will scare the American people, as they always do, into voting for them. That’s their history since WWII, which ironically is the same amount of time that they haven’t been able to win a war. How bizarre! The most technologically advanced and powerful army on the planet hasn’t been able to win a war since 1945! That’s gotta make ya ask a question or two.

And this is what Eisenhower had to say about the Industrial Military Complex when leaving office, in 1961…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY Shortly afterwards, the Vietnam “police action”, turned into the “Vietnam War”. 18 months after this speech, JFK is assassinated by a “lone crazed gunman”, who was assassinated by another “lone crazed gunman”, after Kennedy announced a withdrawal from Vietnam. And strangely, instead a withdrawal, 24 hours after his death and before his body was even cold, LBJ commits 50,000 more troops to Vietnam. But of course there was no “conspiracy” to kill Kennedy…not with TWO “lone crazed gunmen?!?” And of course by sheer coincidence, his brother Bobby was also killed by a lone crazed gunman, just as he was wining a primary. Now, how could anyone believe there was a conspiracy? Please, gimme a break! And who did the Warren Commission appoint to investigate the assassination of JFK? Well gee, only the guys that Kennedy sacked from the CIA and Military…some of the leaders of the Industrial Military Complex! How is that NOT a stitch-up?

TBC...

MC, you might consider adding a tinfoil liner to your hat.

Mindless Cruelty,

You suggest that "how the average American .... have been led like puppets by a marionette "

To save time, I'll re-quote what I wrote last week to your mate Arjay:

" ... the world is not made up just of puppets and a hierarchy of puppet-masters. There ARE people out here who can think for themselves, for good and for evil as well: all manner of groups have their own idiosyncratic agendas.

"Yes, I have talked with my regular Jehovah's Witness visitor who tells me that the greatest trick of Satan is to convince people that he doesn't exist, so please don't go down that path all over again. Join the real world, warts and all, incompetents and all, weird personal and group agendas and all."

Then I biggered it all up by adding

"Mind you, I still think it was the Swedes."

Well, it COULD be ......

Therefore, it is.

I think that's how conspiracy logic goes.

Joe

There are many suspect studies regarding suicide bombers. One of them is that "Hezbollah suicide bombers come from above average wealthy families and have above average intelligence." Coming from an above average wealthy family is no a guarantee of having above average intelligence. At times, the people concerned even indoctrinated educationally subnormal youngsters as suicide bombers. Many young people, who do take up suicide missions, lack a continuing scientific and inquiring mind.

In October 1956, in Budapest, Hungary, when there was a sponteneous uprising against the Russian occupation, many of the most daring acts were carried out by young individuals who appeared rather carefree beforehand. It was almost as though they found a cause to be fully identified with, - as though they wished to atone for how they behaved before. Most of those who survived either left the country, or were imprisoned if they stayed. Either way, they grew wiser with age.

One thing that certainly did not enter their mind is to harm the countless Russian civilians in that country.

The underlying thing regarding suicide bombers, whether they are Japanese kamikazi pilots, Sri Lankan Tigers, or Hezbollah adherents, is their propensity for psychopathic behaviour.

A psychopath is someone who can inflict pain or suffering on others without the feeling of any remorse. Psychopathic behaviuour in any totalitarian system, whether it is politically, religiously or economically driven, is not only tolerated but often rewarded. In a more balanced society, psycopathic behaviour is more likely to be checked or controlled.

One more point is, regarding the idea that the end justifies the means, - as some of those engaged in recruiting suicide bombers may claim. This is nonesense. The end is never in the control of anybody, whether it is an individual, a group, or even a society.