NationStates Jolt Archive

Perhaps some of you might have the insight to answer this question for me. Why do the palestinians and other Middle East insurgents utilize suicide bombers in order to accomplish harm to their enemies?

It seems to be quite inefficient. It is difficult to bring an individual mentally to the point where they will take the lives of an enemy. That is why military training is so harsh in most cases: to mold a mind into a weapon capable of taking human life. Thus, why use this individual in a single strike against a foe by detonating a bomb attached to their bodies or in the trunks of cars they occupy? Would it not be more efficient to place a bomb, retreat to a safe distance, detonate it, and live to bomb again?

you have missed the fact that they are stupid

and no im not going to debate that

think it gives the statement that they are willing to die for what the believe in. doesnt make much sense to me either, but aparently it does to them.

For themselves they are, for want of a more subtle term, Brainwashed. Although the Washers have a lot to work with. And Tactically its the ultimate smart bomb.

What wouldn't you do if you were guaranteed eternal paradise?

The Palestinians breed like rabbits, their birth rate is something like 4 times that of the Israelis. This coupled with the fact that suicide bombing is/was a lucrative business for the families (Saddam was handing out $10,000 cash rewards to suicide bombers parents) make it very attractive. And of course theres the whole "72 virgins in heaven" part. So yeah, aside from the Israelis blowing up your house afterward its a pretty good gig.

its easier to protect against bombs that are planted and left. how are you going to hide a bomb the size of a body without investing major time and effort and little chance of success? a human is a smart bomb, it can manuver, escape if it needs to, place itself in the place that will do the most damage. and its easy to recruit people when they hate the west so much and are promised all those virgins and sweet sweet candy.

its easier to protect against bombs that are planted and left. how are you going to hide a bomb the size of a body without investing major time and effort and little chance of success? a human is a smart bomb, it can manuver, escape if it needs to, place itself in the place that will do the most damage. and its easy to recruit people when they hate the west so much and are promised all those virgins and sweet sweet candy.

this is so sick, but it makes so much sense! :D

My question is not really aimed at the psyche of the suicide bomber themselves, but rather to those who train, convince, and yes, brainwash the bombers. It would seem to be a waste of good raw material. If an individual is willing to exchange their lives in order to strike a target, that individual is a powerful weapon indeed. Why waste it on a single strike?

Sorry if this sounds a bit cold-blooded, but you know that the powers who wind up these poor souls and send them to die had to choose this particular method for a purpose, but it escapes me why they would choose such a inefficient method. Perhaps it is best for the victims of such violence that they have chosen this way...

As has already been mentioned Too much risk. And its a great little propaganda coup having people die for your cause. They dont call it terrorism for nothing afterall.

My question is not really aimed at the psyche of the suicide bomber themselves, but rather to those who train, convince, and yes, brainwash the bombers. It would seem to be a waste of good raw material. If an individual is willing to exchange their lives in order to strike a target, that individual is a powerful weapon indeed. Why waste it on a single strike?

Sorry if this sounds a bit cold-blooded, but you know that the powers who wind up these poor souls and send them to die had to choose this particular method for a purpose, but it escapes me why they would choose such a inefficient method. Perhaps it is best for the victims of such violence that they have chosen this way...

you consider them good raw material, they consider them vectors, the're cheap and expendable, there are plenty more and more are being born all the time
its probbly cheaper then blowing up a car

My question is not really aimed at the psyche of the suicide bomber themselves, but rather to those who train, convince, and yes, brainwash the bombers. It would seem to be a waste of good raw material. If an individual is willing to exchange their lives in order to strike a target, that individual is a powerful weapon indeed. Why waste it on a single strike?

Sorry if this sounds a bit cold-blooded, but you know that the powers who wind up these poor souls and send them to die had to choose this particular method for a purpose, but it escapes me why they would choose such a inefficient method. Perhaps it is best for the victims of such violence that they have chosen this way...

i dont think its as much of an effort as you think it is. how many people does a soldier usually take out in a war? i think my friend in rotc was saying you plan for 3 on the best terrain. how many does a suicide bomber take out? a few dozen or more. plus, bombs have a huge psychological effect. they are recruiting soldiers and these soldiers are guarenteed to take out more people than the normal soldier does. damn, i feel so dirty talking about this.

Suicide bombers are used because, unfortunately, they ARE effective. They are simply the most murderous weapon in the terrorist arsenal right now. They aren't much good against soldiers- but terrorists aren't fighting soldiers. They kill unarmed innocent people.

A suicide bomber is the kind of delivery system that can infiltrate crowded places and is extremely hard to stop. You have to shoot him from afar to stop him- but until you search him, you cannot see if he is a bomber! But if you search him, you leave him time to detonate himself, which guarantees at least one casualty per attack.

Explosive devices used by suicide bombers- the so called nail bombs- are basically of the same nature as the outlawed anti-personnel military weapons like fletschette shells, aimed to inflict maximum damage on surrounding area, which allows for HUNDREDS of dead, wounded and maimed people in a single blast.

Suicide bombers are easier to recruit among the fanatic Muslim groups than regular foot soldiers, because of the "martyrdoom" factor.

In the Muslim world, suicide bombings gained a reputation of the "Islamic wonder weapon" after the very first two suicide attacks on the international peacekeeping force in Beirut in the 80-s left over 300 dead among American and French soldiers deployed there, and prompted an immediate evacuation of the force. This lead Muslim armed groups to believe that the West "runs when bloodied", and that suicide bombings are what the West fears most. Use of suicide bombers against non-Western targets is extremely rare for this very reason- they are linked to the stereotype of Western people as cowards, as opposed to "brave and fearless" armies of Islam.

Then, of course, there is ideological and political gain. In the perception of the West, a suicide is seen as an act of desperation rather than aspiration, and many people cannot conceive of reasons other than the classic "poverty and oppression" duo that could lead a person to kill themselves. A suicide bomber, therefore, by the sole virtue of dying actually gains more sympathy for his act among some circles than do his victims. If a suicide bomber is a child, tis sympathy increases tenfold. The worse the crime, the more they are loved. Some people on this board express consistently express this very view (*coughStephcough*).

Does that answer your question, Theoretical States?

Why suicide bomb? hmm. Well lets call them freedom exploders

Why freedom explode? Cause that way you get rid of yourself, and all the other a$$holes in the world at the same time. The way i see it, if i could have 60+ virgins forever... i think i might freedom explode myself..

The above couple posters are correct, its very effective. If you were to fight a convential war with Israel palenstein would have nobody left in like 2 hours. If you use freedom exploders then you can get like a 30-1 kill ratio. I guess they look at everythign from a mathmatical viewpoint there?

a quick point: if they kill in their attack they are no longer a suicide bomber but rather a homicide bomber because they not only kid themself but others.

They're fools thats the answer

Manually detonated bombs are simply more mechanically reliable and easier to deliver. Remote or timed detonation bombs have a lot of things that can go wrong and are harder to conceal. And the suicide bomber is the ultimate guidance system, and is more capable of hitting the target than a remote detonation system.
In addition, someone willing to die for a cause is much more capable of infliucting disproportionate damage than someone who is not. The first person can focus all their attention on hitting the target without worrying about self-preservation.
Finally, there is the psychological and propaganda value to the cause that comes with having followers willing to die for it.

Suicide bombers are used because, unfortunately, they ARE effective. They are simply the most murderous weapon in the terrorist arsenal right now. They aren't much good against soldiers- but terrorists aren't fighting soldiers. They kill unarmed innocent people.

A suicide bomber is the kind of delivery system that can infiltrate crowded places and is extremely hard to stop. You have to shoot him from afar to stop him- but until you search him, you cannot see if he is a bomber! But if you search him, you leave him time to detonate himself, which guarantees at least one casualty per attack.

Explosive devices used by suicide bombers- the so called nail bombs- are basically of the same nature as the outlawed anti-personnel military weapons like fletschette shells, aimed to inflict maximum damage on surrounding area, which allows for HUNDREDS of dead, wounded and maimed people in a single blast.

Suicide bombers are easier to recruit among the fanatic Muslim groups than regular foot soldiers, because of the "martyrdoom" factor.

In the Muslim world, suicide bombings gained a reputation of the "Islamic wonder weapon" after the very first two suicide attacks on the international peacekeeping force in Beirut in the 80-s left over 300 dead among American and French soldiers deployed there, and prompted an immediate evacuation of the force. This lead Muslim armed groups to believe that the West "runs when bloodied", and that suicide bombings are what the West fears most. Use of suicide bombers against non-Western targets is extremely rare for this very reason- they are linked to the stereotype of Western people as cowards, as opposed to "brave and fearless" armies of Islam.

Then, of course, there is ideological and political gain. In the perception of the West, a suicide is seen as an act of desperation rather than aspiration, and many people cannot conceive of reasons other than the classic "poverty and oppression" duo that could lead a person to kill themselves. A suicide bomber, therefore, by the sole virtue of dying actually gains more sympathy for his act among some circles than do his victims. If a suicide bomber is a child, tis sympathy increases tenfold. The worse the crime, the more they are loved. Some people on this board express consistently express this very view (*coughStephcough*).

Does that answer your question, Theoretical States?

Well, you had me until you started getting whiny about Western sympathies to the bomber. You are dead-on in your history and descriptions of the type and effectiveness of the suicide bomb in this form. You're analysis of the of the psycological effects on both the militant and the west was good, very good in fact.

You anger against those who might sympathize with the suicide bombers is understandable but uneeded in this analysis. It undermines what is otherwise a good analysis of the situation. Those who have not dealt with suicide bombers might not take such a utterly rigid stance as your own. Others might actually have a big enough heart to forgive their enemies as well as their allies for their transgressions.

http://www.fmsound.net/NewReleases/Articles/Gene%20Loves%20Jezebel/B0000AM6KO.01.LZZZZZZZ%5B1%5D.jpg
...smouldering hot!

Suicide bombers are used because, unfortunately, they ARE effective. They are simply the most murderous weapon in the terrorist arsenal right now. They aren't much good against soldiers- but terrorists aren't fighting soldiers. They kill unarmed innocent people.

A suicide bomber is the kind of delivery system that can infiltrate crowded places and is extremely hard to stop. You have to shoot him from afar to stop him- but until you search him, you cannot see if he is a bomber! But if you search him, you leave him time to detonate himself, which guarantees at least one casualty per attack.

Explosive devices used by suicide bombers- the so called nail bombs- are basically of the same nature as the outlawed anti-personnel military weapons like fletschette shells, aimed to inflict maximum damage on surrounding area, which allows for HUNDREDS of dead, wounded and maimed people in a single blast.

Suicide bombers are easier to recruit among the fanatic Muslim groups than regular foot soldiers, because of the "martyrdoom" factor.

In the Muslim world, suicide bombings gained a reputation of the "Islamic wonder weapon" after the very first two suicide attacks on the international peacekeeping force in Beirut in the 80-s left over 300 dead among American and French soldiers deployed there, and prompted an immediate evacuation of the force. This lead Muslim armed groups to believe that the West "runs when bloodied", and that suicide bombings are what the West fears most. Use of suicide bombers against non-Western targets is extremely rare for this very reason- they are linked to the stereotype of Western people as cowards, as opposed to "brave and fearless" armies of Islam.

Then, of course, there is ideological and political gain. In the perception of the West, a suicide is seen as an act of desperation rather than aspiration, and many people cannot conceive of reasons other than the classic "poverty and oppression" duo that could lead a person to kill themselves. A suicide bomber, therefore, by the sole virtue of dying actually gains more sympathy for his act among some circles than do his victims. If a suicide bomber is a child, tis sympathy increases tenfold. The worse the crime, the more they are loved. Some people on this board express consistently express this very view (*coughStephcough*).

Does that answer your question, Theoretical States?

Well, you had me until you started getting whiny about Western sympathies to the bomber. You are dead-on in your history and descriptions of the type and effectiveness of the suicide bomb in this form. You're analysis of the of the psycological effects on both the militant and the west was good, very good in fact.

You anger against those who might sympathize with the suicide bombers is understandable but uneeded in this analysis. It undermines what is otherwise a good analysis of the situation. Those who have not dealt with suicide bombers might not take such a utterly rigid stance as your own. Others might actually have a big enough heart to forgive their enemies as well as their allies for their transgressions.

You have completely missed my point. Inflicting moral confusion and recruiting sympathy for their cause worldwide is one of the main objectives of any terrorist group, and suicide bombings serve exactly this purpose in the way I described. It does not have the same effect on ALL people, but it does on many, including the press itself. Some people actually do pity suicide bombers more than their victims. Some of them genuinely feel this way, others do it as a defensive reaction because they are incapable to recognize that their favorite "underdog" can do wrong. I am ready to illustrate this effect to you with posts of people right here on NationStates either in this thread as it develops further or in other Israel related threads.

Of course the 76 virgins is a myth propogated by the corruption of people like Osama bin Laden and the psuedo-Islam of Al'Queda and Hamas.

Western ignorance of Islam buys wholly into it.

Suicide is a sin under Islamic law as is killing civilians and matyrdom doesn't exactly work on a ten-a-penny system.

But as is the case with all religion and dogma the corrupt who weild the power easily corrupt others.

Suicide bombers are used because, unfortunately, they ARE effective. They are simply the most murderous weapon in the terrorist arsenal right now. They aren't much good against soldiers- but terrorists aren't fighting soldiers. They kill unarmed innocent people.

A suicide bomber is the kind of delivery system that can infiltrate crowded places and is extremely hard to stop. You have to shoot him from afar to stop him- but until you search him, you cannot see if he is a bomber! But if you search him, you leave him time to detonate himself, which guarantees at least one casualty per attack.

Explosive devices used by suicide bombers- the so called nail bombs- are basically of the same nature as the outlawed anti-personnel military weapons like fletschette shells, aimed to inflict maximum damage on surrounding area, which allows for HUNDREDS of dead, wounded and maimed people in a single blast.

Suicide bombers are easier to recruit among the fanatic Muslim groups than regular foot soldiers, because of the "martyrdoom" factor.

In the Muslim world, suicide bombings gained a reputation of the "Islamic wonder weapon" after the very first two suicide attacks on the international peacekeeping force in Beirut in the 80-s left over 300 dead among American and French soldiers deployed there, and prompted an immediate evacuation of the force. This lead Muslim armed groups to believe that the West "runs when bloodied", and that suicide bombings are what the West fears most. Use of suicide bombers against non-Western targets is extremely rare for this very reason- they are linked to the stereotype of Western people as cowards, as opposed to "brave and fearless" armies of Islam.

Then, of course, there is ideological and political gain. In the perception of the West, a suicide is seen as an act of desperation rather than aspiration, and many people cannot conceive of reasons other than the classic "poverty and oppression" duo that could lead a person to kill themselves. A suicide bomber, therefore, by the sole virtue of dying actually gains more sympathy for his act among some circles than do his victims. If a suicide bomber is a child, tis sympathy increases tenfold. The worse the crime, the more they are loved. Some people on this board express consistently express this very view (*coughStephcough*).

Does that answer your question, Theoretical States?

Well, you had me until you started getting whiny about Western sympathies to the bomber. You are dead-on in your history and descriptions of the type and effectiveness of the suicide bomb in this form. You're analysis of the of the psycological effects on both the militant and the west was good, very good in fact.

You anger against those who might sympathize with the suicide bombers is understandable but uneeded in this analysis. It undermines what is otherwise a good analysis of the situation. Those who have not dealt with suicide bombers might not take such a utterly rigid stance as your own. Others might actually have a big enough heart to forgive their enemies as well as their allies for their transgressions.

You have completely missed my point. Inflicting moral confusion and recruiting sympathy for their cause worldwide is one of the main objectives of any terrorist group, and suicide bombings serve exactly this purpose in the way I described. It does not have the same effect on ALL people, but it does on many, including the press itself. Some people actually do pity suicide bombers more than their victims. Some of them genuinely feel this way, others do it as a defensive reaction because they are incapable to recognize that their favorite "underdog" can do wrong. I am ready to illustrate this effect to you with posts of people right here on NationStates either in this thread as it develops further or in other Israel related threads.

The reality is, Israel is no more "right" in this conflict then the Palestinians. They both have equally and unequally justified claims. The suicide bomber is not the weapon of choice, it is the only weapon they really have to use that is effective. Of course no one agrees with people killing innocent civilians. However, this has much to do with poverty, hopelessness and fighting against powers with far more advanced weapon systems. I believe they don't see it as a choice but a must if they are to remain players in the conflict. Otherwise they risk being swallowed whole by their occupiers. Israel in the case of the Palestinians. I certainly don't excuse any one killing innocent civilians whether it's Palestine or Israel or Iraqi or Americans doing it.. This does show the desperate levels that people will go to defend what they believe is right, misguided or not. Of course every thing Israel does to the Palestinians they try to justify, just as every thing the Palestinians do to Israeli's to them they can justify it.. it's a vicious circle and one that has went on since before most of us were born. Neither side willing to be even slightly reasonable. This makes for desperate people. Nationalism is not only for Americans. Nationalism can make people do things that most of us think outrageous. Sadly as long as despair exists in any of these conflicts, so will suicide bombers.

The reality is, Israel is no more "right" in this conflict then the Palestinians. They both have equally and unequally justified claims. The suicide bomber is not the weapon of choice, it is the only weapon they really have to use that is effective. Of course no one agrees with people killing innocent civilians. However, this has much to do with poverty, hopelessness and fighting against powers with far more advanced weapon systems. I believe they don't see it as a choice but a must if they are to remain players in the conflict. Otherwise they risk being swallowed whole by their occupiers. Israel in the case of the Palestinians. I certainly don't excuse any one killing innocent civilians whether it's Palestine or Israel or Iraqi or Americans doing it.. This does show the desperate levels that people will go to defend what they believe is right, misguided or not. Of course every thing Israel does to the Palestinians they try to justify, just as every thing the Palestinians do to Israeli's to them they can justify it.. it's a vicious circle and one that has went on since before most of us were born. Neither side willing to be even slightly reasonable. This makes for desperate people. Nationalism is not only for Americans. Nationalism can make people do things that most of us think outrageous. Sadly as long as despair exists in any of these conflicts, so will suicide bombers.
Thanks Steph. Excellent illustration to my point.

First off, I like how you automatically jump from the subject discussed in this thread- namely the suicide bomber tactics- to "Israel is no more "right" in this conflict then the Palestinians." This statement is of precisely zero relevance to what we are talking about- but you jump there because it is so much more convenient for you to argue. I've noticed this pattern in your posts a long time ago- when you have nothing to counter your opponent's argument with, you run to the "big picture". Try to stay on subject, for a change.

Now to your other statement: "Suicide bomber is not the weapon of choice, it is the only weapon they really have to use that is effective". Is that really the case, Steph? The Palestinians have tons of weapons including machine guns, RPGs (with which they had just destroyed two Israeli APCs, remember?), land mines, mortars and so on. The Iraqi insurgents, equipped with the same weapons, are fighting an army better equipped and funded than the IDF, and quite successfully. The case had been the same in most other conflicts- neither the Vietnamese, nor the Somalians needed suicide bombers and attacks on civilians to fight a superior force. So answer me this million dollar question- why is it that of all the scum of the world, from South American paramilitaries to Iraqi insurgents and Afghan warlords, only the Palestinians are incapable of fighting without suicide bombing civilians?

Oh, and if you "don't excuse any one killing innocent civilians whether it's Palestine or Israel or Iraqi or Americans doing it", I dare you to condemn the actions of the Iraqis or the Palestinian terrorists without immediately looking for excuses of their actions, without hiding behind the "but". Just once. Then I might believe you.

The reality is, Israel is no more "right" in this conflict then the Palestinians. They both have equally and unequally justified claims. The suicide bomber is not the weapon of choice, it is the only weapon they really have to use that is effective. Of course no one agrees with people killing innocent civilians. However, this has much to do with poverty, hopelessness and fighting against powers with far more advanced weapon systems. I believe they don't see it as a choice but a must if they are to remain players in the conflict. Otherwise they risk being swallowed whole by their occupiers. Israel in the case of the Palestinians. I certainly don't excuse any one killing innocent civilians whether it's Palestine or Israel or Iraqi or Americans doing it.. This does show the desperate levels that people will go to defend what they believe is right, misguided or not. Of course every thing Israel does to the Palestinians they try to justify, just as every thing the Palestinians do to Israeli's to them they can justify it.. it's a vicious circle and one that has went on since before most of us were born. Neither side willing to be even slightly reasonable. This makes for desperate people. Nationalism is not only for Americans. Nationalism can make people do things that most of us think outrageous. Sadly as long as despair exists in any of these conflicts, so will suicide bombers.
Thanks Steph. Excellent illustration to my point.

First off, I like how you automatically jump from the subject discussed in this thread- namely the suicide bomber tactics- to "Israel is no more "right" in this conflict then the Palestinians." This statement is of precisely zero relevance to what we are talking about- but you jump there because it is so much more convenient for you to argue. I've noticed this pattern in your posts a long time ago- when you have nothing to counter your opponent's argument with, you run to the "big picture". Try to stay on subject, for a change.

Now to your other statement: "Suicide bomber is not the weapon of choice, it is the only weapon they really have to use that is effective". Is that really the case, Steph? The Palestinians have tons of weapons including machine guns, RPGs (with which they had just destroyed two Israeli APCs, remember?), land mines, mortars and so on. The Iraqi insurgents, equipped with the same weapons, are fighting an army better equipped and funded than the IDF, and quite successfully. The case had been the same in most other conflicts- neither the Vietnamese, nor the Somalians needed suicide bombers and attacks on civilians to fight a superior force. So answer me this million dollar question- why is it that of all the scum of the world, from South American paramilitaries to Iraqi insurgents and Afghan warlords, only the Palestinians are incapable of fighting without suicide bombing civilians?

Oh, and if you "don't excuse any one killing innocent civilians whether it's Palestine or Israel or Iraqi or Americans doing it", I dare you to condemn the actions of the Iraqis or the Palestinian terrorists without immediately looking for excuses of their actions, without hiding behind the "but". Just once. Then I might believe you.

Oh indeed, I condemn Palestine, I condemn Israel, Iraq and America.. all a bunch of misguided people fighting and killing all of them killing innocents in the name of "freedom" but the truth is it has nothing to do with freedom and every thing to do with self interest.

Ya know Wom, you seem like a decent dude to me.. so we disagree, such is life.. it's not the end of the world ;)

Oh indeed, I condemn Palestine, I condemn Israel, Iraq and America.. all a bunch of misguided people fighting and killing all of them killing innocents in the name of "freedom" but the truth is it has nothing to do with freedom and every thing to do with self interest.
See? You still need a "broader context", the "big picture". Is it so difficult to look at an immoral act like a suicide bombing and say "This is immoral" full stop????


Ya know Wom, you seem like a decent dude to me.. so we disagree, such is life.. it's not the end of the world ;)
Nope, of course its not. I don't think you are a bad person either- or I wouldn't be debating with you. ;)

You are Canadian, right Steph? Not from Trent University by chance?

Perhaps some of you might have the insight to answer this question for me. Why do the palestinians and other Middle East insurgents utilize suicide bombers in order to accomplish harm to their enemies?

It seems to be quite inefficient. It is difficult to bring an individual mentally to the point where they will take the lives of an enemy. That is why military training is so harsh in most cases: to mold a mind into a weapon capable of taking human life. Thus, why use this individual in a single strike against a foe by detonating a bomb attached to their bodies or in the trunks of cars they occupy? Would it not be more efficient to place a bomb, retreat to a safe distance, detonate it, and live to bomb again?

Here's a flippant answer to your question: because as a leader of a pro-terrorist organization that has the inlfluence over the terrorists themselves, all you have to do is pay peace some lip service, tell your goons to knock off the violence for several months, and you can can get some recognition (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_arafat_nobel.php)

You know what? That didn't answer anyone's question but it did feel good to jot it down.

Perhaps some of you might have the insight to answer this question for me. Why do the palestinians and other Middle East insurgents utilize suicide bombers in order to accomplish harm to their enemies?

It seems to be quite inefficient. It is difficult to bring an individual mentally to the point where they will take the lives of an enemy. That is why military training is so harsh in most cases: to mold a mind into a weapon capable of taking human life. Thus, why use this individual in a single strike against a foe by detonating a bomb attached to their bodies or in the trunks of cars they occupy? Would it not be more efficient to place a bomb, retreat to a safe distance, detonate it, and live to bomb again?

Here's a flippant answer to your question: because as a leader of a pro-terrorist organization that has the inlfluence over the terrorists themselves, all you have to do is pay peace some lip service, tell your goons to knock off the violence for several months, and you can can get some recognition (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_arafat_nobel.php)

Your source isn't exactly credible.. or at the least, objective.

Who is the editor of Palestinian Facts?

There is no one individual editor. The site has been prepared by a team of writers and editors who are knowledgable of the history, politics, economics and military situation in the Middle East, based on information compiled from the best available sources. They have developed Palestine Facts to provide much-needed factual information to everyone who may be interested in the current situation in Israel, how it evolved to today's status, and what might be reasonable policies for the future. Palestine Facts is a project of the Jewish Internet Association.

Perhaps some of you might have the insight to answer this question for me. Why do the palestinians and other Middle East insurgents utilize suicide bombers in order to accomplish harm to their enemies?

It seems to be quite inefficient. It is difficult to bring an individual mentally to the point where they will take the lives of an enemy. That is why military training is so harsh in most cases: to mold a mind into a weapon capable of taking human life. Thus, why use this individual in a single strike against a foe by detonating a bomb attached to their bodies or in the trunks of cars they occupy? Would it not be more efficient to place a bomb, retreat to a safe distance, detonate it, and live to bomb again?

Here's a flippant answer to your question: because as a leader of a pro-terrorist organization that has the inlfluence over the terrorists themselves, all you have to do is pay peace some lip service, tell your goons to knock off the violence for several months, and you can can get some recognition (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_arafat_nobel.php)

Your source isn't exactly credible.. or at the least, objective.

Who is the editor of Palestinian Facts?

There is no one individual editor. The site has been prepared by a team of writers and editors who are knowledgable of the history, politics, economics and military situation in the Middle East, based on information compiled from the best available sources. They have developed Palestine Facts to provide much-needed factual information to everyone who may be interested in the current situation in Israel, how it evolved to today's status, and what might be reasonable policies for the future. Palestine Facts is a project of the Jewish Internet Association.

Are you going to dispute the fact that Arafat recieved a Nobel or are you going to agrue about the commentary that I myself came up with?