Like Tony Blair's wife said on the news "I suppose as long as there is poverty and starvation in the world, people will blow themselves up". it seems like big misconception to me. It's a particular weapon that probably CAN be stopped, by destroying the system that makes them. What I'm saying is... TERRORISM is a relatively organic product of the situation, but not suicide bombing.

>I say that yeah there's the notion of reward in their
>culture..
>BUT.
>
>Despair, hopelessness are also a motivation.
>And pure anger too.

No doubt the militants will capitalize on whatever feelings the local population have. But people talk as if that is that is the SOLE motivation, it might be because

hopeless, despairing people commit suicide
so they assume it must be hopeless, despairing people who commit suicide bombing

but lots of reports I've read suggest the suicide bombers had families to live for.

Maybe you've got a point though with the "black widow" bombers

>
>
>Plus. They're fighting an enemy who's better equiped so they
>know they can't win in a "regular war".
>

That's what I'm saying... it's a tool of warfare, like Kamikaze.

>Just like Russian against the Nazis in WW2, they fought with
>what they had..

but still no one "has to" blow themselves up. The Russian fighting was desperate but it wasn't deliberately suicidal