On Terrorism: Discuss

[danaeris]

I think most of us agree that the world would be a better place without terrorism. It is methods we would disagree upon. That is, methods to rid ourselves of it.

For my part, I think that there are two basic ways to try to get rid of terrorism, or at least, the elements of arabic culture which make terrorism so common. There is the ruthless way, which involves direct and open interference, and there is the subtle, more devious but peaceful way, involving knowledge, education, economic pressures, culture "wars", and possibly various forms of espionnage. Perhaps a third class of methods could be made by combining the previous two methods in various fashions.

The US would appear to be trying to do the first method, but I would argue that they are not being adequately ruthless. The problem is not, primarily, a problem of government, but moreso a problem of culture. If you really want to eradicate these cultures, you would have to go in, take all the children from their parents, and raise them in strictly controlled environments where they are brainwashed using cutting edge psych techniques to eradicate any willingness to engage in terrorism. This could be done with a re-engineered, anti-terrorist "edition" of their existing culture... or it could be done with some form of Western culture. Of course, alternatively, if this seems too easy, just kill all of them, and that culture will birth no more terrorists. Killing them too much for your stomach? OK, sterilize them all. Biologically, and culturally, it amounts to nearly the same thing.

I'm not saying that I think the US should be doing ANY of the above. What I'm saying is that to succeed via direct interference, I suspect you need to be THAT ruthless. Frightening, neh?

It's possible that the US is trying to do some combination of the above two options. But, that's so complicated, I couldn't comment at all on the effectiveness of their implementation.

And then there's the culture war method. The method of peace and subtle underhandedness. I'm willing to believe that some day, as the world culture evolves, the attitudes and beliefs which motivate terrorists will pass away along with the adults which hold them. Given enough time, only a handful would remain, and they would not be able to exactly get support from those around them. Do you think this would happen? How many decades will it take? Is installing a democratic environment a necessary first step, making this a mixed thing?

And, for that matter, by how much could that time be shortened by making a specific attempt to make change?

Please discuss if you're interested, and play nice, kiddies. When there are differences of opinions on something factual, please find a source and cite it if you have time, or politely drop the topic.

Comments

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

I'm willing to believe that some day, as the world culture evolves, the attitudes and beliefs which motivate terrorists will pass away along with the adults which hold them.

I'm not able to concede that, actually. The idea of "hit people where it hurts them most, even if it isn't fair" is startlingly effective. The corresponding meme of "My life would be better if everyone accorded respect to the things I cherished and shunned the things I despise" is also unlikely to fade. Put those two together, and you've got a pernicious formula. Even if this particular band fades away, the methodology remains.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't meant to claim that terrorism itself will not remain a tactic that some will use.

I mean that if there is indeed an element to Islamic culture which promotes terrorism, that this element will fade into oblivion.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Someone pointed (correctly or not, don't know) out that the cost of the war in Iraq to date (mid-2003 at that point) would be enough to buy a big-screen TV, X-box, and pair of cool shoes for every single person in the demographic considered likely to be become a suicide bomber (20 something male) through the Middle-East.

An interesting variant on culture war, at least.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

I'd rather give them TVs and video games than invade their country...

[iclysdale.livejournal.com]

the elements of arabic culture which make terrorism so common

I'm sorry -- as somebody who grew up just north of London in the '80s, I just want to face-palm every time I hear somebody say something like this. I absolutely refuse to buy in to the Dubya line that terrorism is an Islamic extremist thing -- because it's not, no matter how much every American media outlet tries to sell it. Terrorism is remarkably universal. The IRA used to have major tube bombings, if not monthly, at least yearly, and I remember bomb scares. Latin America has been a hotbed of terrorism and counterterrorism pretty much all century, with the worst atrocities tending to happen from the paramilitaries funded by rich landlords and corporations. Prior to 9/11, the most extensive terrorist act on American soil was carried out by homegrown extremists -- and remember how fast the Oklahoma city bombings got blamed on Islamic extremists even then? Is there a vocal Islamic militant terrorist wing? Of course. Do they have any more relationship to the rest of Islamic culture than Tim McVeigh does to mainstream American culture?

And, in my rather cynical mind, I'm fairly convinced that the reason we're being sold -- over and over again -- this line that "terrorism is an Islamic phenomenon" -- is because it can be used to justify, to reasonable, smart and decent people, exactly the kind of cultural genocide that you're talking about. We have a responsibility to replace their culture with ours, because their culture is fundamentally a terrorist culture.

[dicedork.livejournal.com]

*emphatic nodding*

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Thank you for bringing up this point. It is one of which I needed to be reminded.

As I mentioned above in a comment to jadasc, I don't believe for a second that terrorism as a method will ever fade away completely. It is an aspect of human makeup in adversity, sadly.

What I was addressing was the fate of that supposed element of Islamic culture which purportedly leads to a greater level of terrorism. Of course, if, as you posit, there is nothing about Islamic culture which makes it more likely to produce terrorists, then the question is a moot question.

I don't pretend to understand these things, and for that reason, I certainly won't argue with you at this point. I also can't accept your statement at face value. Can you recommend a good book to read which supports your thesis? Specifically, the thesis that Islamic culture is no more likely to produce terrorists than other cultures?

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to add that, by saying that I can't accept your statement at face value, I don't mean to imply that I find "common wisdom" more trustworthy than "IClysdale wisdom." It is more the belief that I have to research these things myself in order to form an opinion; I can't just take the opinions of others and then act as though it were mine.

I imagine that, being as intelligent and well-researched as you are, you can understand that. :)

[northbard.livejournal.com]

Umm...

The point he made isn't actually arguable, IMO. :) He was saying that it's not just the Islamic culture that gives rise terrorism. That's not a thesis, so much as a verifiable observation of the past 100 years.

There are Basque terrorists, Irish terrorists, jewish terrorists, christian terrorists, and atheist terrorists. Pagan terrorists as well no doubt.
This doesn't require books, just newspapers and any textbook on modern world history.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

That's not what I was asking him to support, northbard.

I was asking him to support the thesis that Islamic culture, or certain islamic cultures, are not more likely to produce terrorists. And that IS a debatable point.

[northbard.livejournal.com]

Huh...

Gotcha.

You understand that you're asking for support of a negative assumption here yes? That is to say, this is like asking for proof that Santa doesn't exist.

Seriously, look at the assumptions underlying your question. You are asking for proof not that, as claimed by the US media (effectively) Islam is a terrorist religion, but for proof that it isn't.

I can point you to millions of muslims who are not terrorists, but negative proof is impossible.

Ask instead whether there is proof that Islam, irrespective of outside influences such as poverty, violence, war, oppression and fear lends itself to terrorism and then you have a question that can be debated, IMO.

[iclysdale.livejournal.com]

OK, and you know, I won't argue right now that "certain Islamic cultures" are more likely to produce terrorists. I don't think that is debatable -- that too is a matter of historical record.

The question becomes "why?" -- and the answer is a whole lot more complex, I think, than saying Islam. The point I wanted to make is that under certain social circumstances, groups respond to terrorism as the only way to fight against an overwhelmingly powerful military force. Usually, I would also suggest, this happens when they feel that they are being made subject to major shifts, either cultural/social and/or economic, to which they did not consent, did not feel represented in the decision-making process, and where there has not been a process of mutual accomodation.

I also think that fundamentalisms play a key role in that last element, the lack of mutual accomodation, since they inherently declare a "one true way" that is in theory unchangeable. (In practice, historically, true ways change remarkably quickly a lot of the time, when change is not imposed upon them.)

As far as references to some of what I'm arguing, I'm not entirely sure where I'd point you -- I don't know if anyone has written a cogent discussion of this, and it's something that would be worth writing. If I had time and energy, I'd be tempted to start researching and writing something myself.

I can give you some pointers, though, on where I'd start my research.

For discussions of the structures of fundamentalism, James Aube's work on family networks in Baptist America are an excellent start. It's accessible sociology, looking at the differences in networks and structures in "fundamentalist cultures."

For a look at the issues addressing modern Islam -- especially immigrant Islam -- Irshad Manji's "The Trouble with Islam," which Velvet Page mentioned, is an excellent book, and entirely worth reading, even if she doesn't really agree with my thesis in all its particulars.

To argue that fundamentalism is not remotely inherent to Islam -- especially in comparison to Christianity -- there are a number of good works, but I'd have to go to my bookshelves at home and brush through them to give names; nothing's coming off of the top of my head. The key issue I'd point out, there, though, is that North American and Northern European Christianity has had three centuries of liberal modernity to mellow it out. If you're going to compare Islam and Christianity in terms of dogmatism, fundamentalism, and narrow-mindedness, you really have to compare Islam with the forms of Christianity coming out of parts of Africa and parts of Latin America right now -- which actually scare me even more than fundamentalist elements of Islam, murders of homosexuals and rape victims and all.

Finally, the key point that I really want to make is that one of the key factors in the growth of terrorism - and for this I'd pull out Human Rights Watch reports, the necessary if dogmatically painful Noam Chomsky, the brilliant but I disagree with 90% of what he says Michael Ignatieff (although I recommend "Blood and Belonging" to you -- I think you might agree with him where I don't, and it's certainly a thought-provoking read), and various works on the re-growth of terrorist extremist groups in North America, like Warren Kinsella's "Web of Hate" -- is people feeling, whether it's "true" or not, that the change has been imposed upon them, rather than accepted by and brought in on their own community. And that's why insistent attempts to export *our* version of liberal modernity to these admittedly very scary places disturb me deeply. I think that the only viable long-term solution is to strengthen and support groups within these nations and communities who are promoting their *own* progressive worldviews, which will inherently be different than ours. And that's difficult -- sometimes we'll deeply disagree, and sometimes on issues that are very important to us. To be honest, I think gay rights is likely to be one of those minefields for the next century, and I don't like that. But I also think that having a variety of different progressive, liberal, modern worldviews will strengthen us in the long run infinitely more than just spreading one.

Agreed.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

We can't ever hope to defeat Terrorism abroad until we purge the Terrorist elements from our own Culture, specifically the neoConservative movement whose every political move is calculated to rule by fear, and the bulk of the mass media who prefer to show shocking news from the front and hype about the latest "dangers" at home than actually conducting journalism.

Re: Agreed.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting suggestion. I'd certainly agree that more than ever, the US is ruling its populace by terror. Not by killing them but simply by scaring them.

I take it that you are arguing that what the US does is simply a more subtle, peaceful but similarly reprehensible form of terrorism? I could buy into that.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

You're right, to a point. The justification aspect is very strong in this. But the fact is, Islam is not a religion of peace and compromise. It's a "my way or the highway" kind of faith, and it always has been. There are different factions in Islam, but they have rarely managed to coexist in peace for very long - nowhere near as long as Christian factions have managed to live in peace with each other in most of the world.

Have you read "The Trouble with Islam" by Irshad Manji? She's a Ugandan-born, Canadian-raised, lesbian Muslim journalist. There's a sequel out now that I haven't had a chance to read yet. It's fascinating. She compares her run-ins with Christian culture in Canada to her experience with her own faith, and believe me, it's not the Christians who are lacking in her estimation. She also looks at the history of Islam, especially during its golden age in the Middle Ages, and sees the seeds that have become the intractable fundamentalism of today.

[iclysdale.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've read Irshad's book -- she's actually a good friend of a friend, and there are elements that I certainly agree with her on. Let's be clear here: I don't like fundamentalisms of any flavour. And one of the things that I find really unfortunate about the recent rice of Islamophobia is that it makes it difficult to speak out against Islamic fundamentalisms without sounding like a racist.

But as I remember her point -- and it's been a while -- she emphasizes that it's more a problem with what Islam has *become* in many places. And I'm with her there, mostly. You mentioned yourself the "golden age" of Islam -- when Islam provided a sanctuary for scientists, philosophers, free thinkers, and basically kept knowledge alive for several hundred years.

I think that we do need to find a progressive world view that has a space for tolerance and dialogue, and I think that fundamentalism in all its myriad forms is a firm impediment to that, as well as having nurtured some unpleasant forms of terrorism - whether we're talking about the IRA or about Al Qaeda.

But all other things aside, I think that it's a bad idea *tactically* to keep talking about "Islamic fundamentalism," when referring to this kind of problem, rather than just terrorism -- for several reasons. First of all, it poisons non-fundamentalist strands of Islam, because when you say Islam, the word-association is immediately "terrorist." And if we keep poisoning the non-fundamentalist strands, it's only going to be yet another thing that strengthens the hands of fundamentalism.

But secondly, because fundamentalism is alive and well in Christian culture, and it's doing exactly the same thing. There are major strands in the US that want exactly the same polarized holy war that Al Qaeda do -- and are happy to *strengthen* fundamentalism in Islam, because that will strengthen their own position. I firmly believe that taking this view explains very simply the many ways in which the US government has continually propped up fundamentalist groups and regimes before setting them up for a fall, as well as the way that these terrorist groups have continually acted in ways to encourage the continuation of the war on terror. *Both* sides want to polarize to strengthen their own fundamentalisms, and I think that this focus on "Islamic fundamentalism" is part of that process.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Semantic point taken - we're talking terrorism, not islamic fundamentalism.

[maxsalamander.livejournal.com]

So there are two ways to treat a disease: 1)treat the cause and
2)treat the symptoms. Western medicine, and warfare, is primarily
engineered for the latter. Unfortunately, that method only serves
to eliminate the particular unwanted symptom that one is fighting.
Once eliminated, other symptoms will quickly take its place.

What, then, is the cause of terrorism? It cannot be isolated within a
specific culture (ie middle eastern/arabic) because terrorism exists
within many cultures, and has many forms. The idea of waging fear
for the purposes of control, power, or wealth is a global and historical
problem. (And I say problem because it appears to me that this is
something that most people would like to see change. Another interpretation
could be that it is "human nature," and history would seem to agree
-- although I believe that there is potential for evolution.)

I think it boils down to an issue of communication -- where this method
has become the only, though drastic, method that the perpetrators can
find to express [whatever they are attempting to express -- probably
emotional in nature.] I do think that violence and terror are the last
remaining death throes of an extreme desire to express.

To treat it, with that in mind, it may be necessary to focus on communication,
which involves establishment of a common language, an understanding of
cultural and regional differences, and development of a protocol that allows
for tolerance and disagreement without terror. This is not something that is
easy to do, and requires a concerted effort and desire to change.

There are people who are working on it -- Prof. Michael Nagler from Berkeley
is one of those -- but I do not know how readily world governments would attempt
to adapt it as policy. I think it would take a greater popular dissatisfaction than
exists at the moment.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this very thoughtful reply.

I don't know. In a world with no injustice, there wouldn't be much if any terrorism. But, I don't know that there will ever be a world free of injustice.

So you have this terrorist, and you say "We'd like to communicate with you." What if what they want is something you can't or won't give?

I'm not convinced that terrorism is an attempt at communication. In some cases it may be, but in other cases, it is an act of aggression in desperation. Imagine Terrorist A. He really feels that men should be subservient to women, and no one will listen to him, not because he has no avenues of communication, but because they think his idea is dumb. He gets more and more excited, and eventually begins committing terrorist acts against the decadent men who dare to lord it over the goddesses he feels they should bow to. What then? We could claim he needs mental help, but starting to dictate what religious or ethical beliefs are "sane" is a big Pandora's Box.

I guess I need to read more about this Professor you mention, and his work. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what he's doing!

[maxsalamander.livejournal.com]

(By the way, thank you for bringing up this discussion! :)

I agree with you that I don't believe that there will ever (or at least
without a very long time and a lot of change) be a world without
injustice. I do think that there are less violent ways to deal with it
that would be beneficial to all parties involved. Who wants to have
their families and friends blown to pieces?

It does become difficult when someone's ideology involves the
treatment of others. If Terrorist A does indeed believe that men
are subservient to women and this is the only thing that will make
him happy, then this is a valid concern for society at large to deal
with. Thinking someone's idea is "dumb" is an often-used way to
shut off communication - by labling the idea as irrelevant - without
consciously and logically dealing with the issue in question (why does
he think this? could there be something useful in his idea? etc.)
One of the big steps in an exchange of ideas is to accept the validity
of the other's position. (Even though it may seem preposterous at
first glance.)

Secondly, there may be no resolution to the two [or more] opposing
viewpoints. I would like to think that this is acceptable! Not everyone
is going to agree, and conflict does produce a beneficial exchange of
knowledge. This is, I think, where tolerance and alternate ways of
dealing with differences are necessary.

That said, I do not know what these alternate ways will be. I believe that
they are there, and I have seen nonviolent communication begin to make
some progress in resolving differences on an interpersonal level. I think
that directed research into conflict resolution has been, and will continue
to be, successful and productive. We are a creative species.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

One of the themes in "Major Barbara" was the correct use of force, and the place that arms and gunpowder have in a civilized society. The street mission in the poorest part of London was contrasted quite sharply with a lovely little town, where all the houses were new, all the streets paved and all the people had jobs. There were schools and churches and community centres. All of this was possible because the munitions factory supported the entire town. Barbara's mother stated that to be a moral arms-factory owner, one simply had to sell cannons to those who were in the right and refuse to sell them to foreigners and criminals. Barbara's father completely disagreed with that. His morality involved selling indiscriminately to every side.

The fact is, socially-minded Christianity of the sort practised by the Salvation Army of that time (and, to be honest, it hasn't changed all that much) only works when funded by big, sinful companies. The big companies end up calling the shots in the government, because that's where the money is that keeps people working and the economy running.

Changing the culture in the Middle East requires a total change of economy there. It will require big companies moving in and managing to stay afloat long enough to have families and communities depending on them, unwilling to do anything that will jeopardize them. In short, it will take an industrial revolution that touches most of the workforce, either directly or in spin-off service industries.

Historically, there has never been a revolution that didn't begin with starvation, usually long-term, and oppression that included physical needs not being met. If physical stability and a less religiously-biased education were to become facts of life in the Middle East, we would see terrorism decrease.

[kineticphoenix.livejournal.com]

I think that there are two basic ways to try to get rid of terrorism, or at least, the elements of arabic culture which make terrorism so common.

I understand that you're trying to open this up to objective discourse. That said, the statement cited above makes me slightly sick to my stomach. Why target only Arab cultures here? Extremism comes in all cultures, and singling out one particular race will only serve to divide us further rather than to target the root cause of what makes a terrorist...in any culture.

Lest you forget, my wife is Lebanese. We get stopped and screened in airports all the time, and ever since 9/11, she has felt the need to keep a very low profile in terms of activism, etc. We generally have to watch our step.

I agree that terrorism is a problem. At the same time, I don't believe that racial profiling is the answer. It tends to create problems for perfectly normal law-abiding citizens who just happen to be of Middle Eastern descent.

How do we target terrorism in any culture and stop it before it hurts someone? I don't know. I hope that we are able to get to the root of the problem soon. I just don't believe targeting one specific racial group is the answer.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

I'd like to start this response by expressing my hope that you can be comfortable with this discourse, and that I do not bear ill towards you or your wife, for whom I have feelings of fondness and with whom I share a number of lovely memories.

I don't know if you've read the conversation which has resulted from this post of mine. It has educated me extensively, and I think you'll like what a lot of the people are saying.

Either way, I'm posting a summary inspired by this response (it started off as a response to you and just grew into something else) which may clarify what I've learned from this discussion, and shed light on my current position, although quite frankly, I'm not sure what I believe on a number of counts.

I respectfully disagree.

[night--watch.livejournal.com]

This is not a simple, or even recent problem.

1) Nothing short of a totalitarian world government would be able to implement your first, "direct" strategy. In the event of such a government, *I* would likely be among those who take up arms against it. So much for that plan.

2) I'm willing to believe that some day, as the world culture evolves, the attitudes and beliefs which motivate terrorists will pass away along with the adults which hold them

jadasc has already responded to this...

A large part of the reason the terrorists are attacking the US in particular is because of their policy of globalization and, essentially, economic bullying. The rich are exploiting the poor on an unprecedented scale. The G8 countries are the ultra-wealthy royalty, and developing countries are forced to sell their resources to multi-national companies, mostly American-owned. The Arabic world has had the misfortune to be blessed with oil, and, rather than admit competition on an open market, the American government would much rather control the means of production and thus set the global economy. It doesn't seem to care how many people it kills to accomplish this.

You can understand that people might be a bit upset about this. They're naturally sympathetic to any anti-American cause. I'm sure most would not support, say, flying planes into the World Trade Centre, but do you really think they were sad to see it go?

I'm simplifying, I know, but the point is that until there is *some* level of equality between the haves and the have-nots (ie until the haves stop using their power to take what little they *do* have), we will have war, on whatever level it can be waged.

Re: I respectfully disagree.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

1) Nothing short of a totalitarian world government would be able to implement your first, "direct" strategy. In the event of such a government, *I* would likely be among those who take up arms against it. So much for that plan.

I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't saying that I would support either of those plans. I find both of them relatively unacceptable. Please do check out my most recent post on the topic. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts!

Tactics versus arguments

[admiralthrawn.livejournal.com]

Terrorism is not a goal, it's a tactic to achieve a goal. And if you want to get rid of a tactic, the appropriate responce is to treat it like a crime: just as we can't make everyone in society friendly to each other, but we can minimize the number of murders that happen as a result of unfriendly people, we can't eliminate "people who want to change the world", but we can minimize the number of said people who decide that blowing things up is the right answer to the question "how shall I change the world". Remove the means, the motive, and the opportunity, and the tactic goes away; would be world-changers start writing books to spread their views, or running for office, or staging non-violent protests...

The opportunity is something that the west is working on. Poorly, in many places, (I'm sure we've all laughed at some of the more idiotic airport security measures), but if you make sure would-be-terrorists are kept out of your country, or at least away from interesting targets, you make it a lot harder for them to blow things up. Of course, there are many opportunities that are hard to cover -- there are a lot of US tourists around the world, ships going through every sea and ocean, and so on, but you can achieve some reduction in opportunity if you try.

Means is also something that you can reduce but not eliminate. This is why we've been working on the international banking system, to look for sketchy money transfers that might be funding weapons, and why we have assorted sanctions on countries that we think are funding/supporting terrorists. And increased patrols, cameras, bomb-sniffing dogs, etc throughout the country. Make it hard for someone to acquire a bomb or gun, and maybe they'll decide that the amount of mayhem they can work with just a knife isn't worth it, and try a more acceptable tactic. Additionally, you need to provide an alternate, non-terrorism means for people to achieve their goals. This is why installing democracies and freedom of expression are an important component of fighting terrorism -- if Bob feels that he can change the world to be more to his liking by voting or running for office or making large campaign donations, and this is easier/less costly than terrorism, Bob may decide to go that way.

Ack, hit the comment size limit; more in next comment.

Re: Tactics versus arguments

[admiralthrawn.livejournal.com]

Motive... That's the kicker. When people are motivated enough, they don't need much in the way of means or opportunity; much of the point of terrorism is that it often doesn't require expensive equipment or training (though it helps), and there are too many opportunities around for them all to be guarded. Unfortunately, just as there are a lot of means and opportunities to cover, there are a lot of motives you'd need to work on.

Poverty: yep, some people blow themselves and others up because they're starving. Some of the footsoldiers join up because they or their families are starving, so you can decrease the level of that kind of recruiting, but history has shown that the terrorists most dangerous to the west are typically not poor (definitely not by the standards of the middle east, and mostly not even by US standards). So poverty-fighting can form one leg of an anti-motive strategy, but it needs to be complemented by understanding why solidly middle and upper class people become and support terrorists as well, and some attack on their motivations as well.

Pride: We came and splattered a country's army, and are now occupying it. That pisses off a lot of the locals. The war in Iraq bred a lot of new terrorists, because we attacked their pride, and now they are trying desprately to show that they can Do Something. Working on this takes time, effort, and some subtlety -- you need to make them proud of their country again, which requires not just getting foreign troops out, but giving them the feeling that their country is accomplishing somehting _without_outside_help_. You need to get them involved in sports, international politics, international trade, so that the discussions they have at dinner aren't about the latest army roadblocks, but rather about how their national soccer team just beat Italy, and their ambassador signed a treaty with Yemen, and Baghdad Computers is stealing market share from Dell in the all-important chinese market. Once you have steered the discussions that way, suddenly those with wounded pride start seeing other ways to build up their country.

Religion. There are hundreds of millions of muslims that believe in a religion of peace. There are also a lot who firmly believe that they will go to heaven if they kill an infidel. I have no idea how to change this, but until it is changed, true believers in that strain of islam will continue blowing things up, because that is what they are taught is the right and proper thing to do, as an end in itself, not just as a tactic toward some other end. It can change -- christian crusaders believed that liberating the holy land was a ticket to heaven, and the religion got over it. I don't think this can be changed from outside, since outsiders mucking around in a religion does nothing but provoke a backlash, so all I can suggest is that those of you who follow Allah the peaceful go find the people who spout lines about the 72 virgins and try to convert them to your religion.

Attitude: in large swaths of the world, blowing people up is just another way to send a message. When terrorists blow up a building in palestine, the locals are often quoted in the press as admiring the strength and courage that they are showing. There is no local pressure saying "hey, this is not an ok thing to do"; instead there is pressure on peaceful movements to become armed, because that is how you "show your strength". Attitudes do change over time, but it is difficult, especially in places with state-run media that are deliberately trying to instill those attitudes. This is another place where supporting a free press can help -- expose people to the attitudes of the rest of the world, and perhaps their own attitudes will start to shift.

I'm sure there are other motives that I'm forgetting now, but my point is that you need a multi-pronged attack, one that hits many of the motives, as well as reducing the means and opportunities, if you really want to reduce terrorism. And you're never going to make it go away completely; there will always be the occasional lone nutcase who does dumb things, but you can probably eliminate much of it...