True Causes of Terrorism finally being discussed

Any rational person knows that a certain symptom has to be analyzed before its real cause can be diagnosed, and that a correct diagnosis is necessary before the symptom/problem can be treated or cured. Terrorism is no different. If one remembers the first few weeks after the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks, there was a lot of discussions in mainstream media about why they hate us and how America's foreign policy played a major role in that hatred. However, as you also may remember, the discussion quickly shifted into belligerent jingoism where Americans were made to believe that they are hated because of democracy and freedom, thus justifying the invasion of Afghanistan and later Iraq.Even respected British think  tanks, such as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House have stated in a recent report that Britian's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was a contributing factor for the London bombings. The BBC has interviewed an anonymous person who watches Arab media and Islamist web sites, and he says that there is no doubt that the invasion of Iraq and the civilian deaths that followed are a major factor in the London bomb attacks. Ken Livingston, mayor of London, blamed Britain's Middle East policy for the bombings. Yet, most politicians continue use empty emotional rhetoric to try to distance their policies and decisions as a directly related cause for terrorism. Tony Blair has said that it is "evil ideology" not caused by any policies or founded in any injustice, hence joining G.W. Bush and others. While some discussions on Terrorism, Causes and Remedies have indeed happened, this was under the fold of international organizations, mainly the United Nations. Little discussion took place inside the USA, mainly in mainstream media.Recently, it seems that rationalism and probing of the real reasons have quietly re-emerged within the USA and in Britian. For example, Peter Bergen, in New York Times, has an article that debunks the often quoted fallacy that Madrassas from being breeding grounds for terrorism,  stating that terrorists are often well educated, with university degrees. I should note here that "madrassa" is an Arabic word مدرسة which simply means "school", and is used in the Arab world to refer to any secular or religious school. As an aside, there is one thing I do not agree with Peter Bergen in the article. That is his assertion that poverty is not a cause of terrorism. While poverty alone does not cause terrorism, it can be one cause among many when combined with political, economic and social factors. More recently, and in a New York Times article titled Al Qaeda Smart bombs, Robert A. Pape, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and author of "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism", quotes research he has conducted, showing that the figures say that "Al Qaeda is today less a product of Islamic fundamentalism than of a simple strategic goal: to compel the United States and its Western allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries." Also, check this interview with Robert Pape on his book at MSNBC. It is clear from his research that geo-politics and socio-economic factors are by far more important than religion for suicide bombers, be they Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Palestine or London.There is also another opinion column by Professor Pape in the NewYork Times, about  blowing up an assumption. Also another interview by Professor Pape with Australia's ABC, and a later blog post by Oliver King of The Guardian. Attendees at a international disaster conference in Toronto also called for a dramatic rethinking of the global policy on terrorism, and shift from a primary military strategy to understanding and tackling the disenchantment that is the root cause. Also, famed author Karen Armstrong, in a recent Guardian commentary about the difficult task of how to label terrorist acts in the name of Islam, and states that the label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA. The article makes another equally important point: "Fundamentalism is often a form of nationalism in religious disguise" and "militant religiosity is often the product of social, economic and political factors." Salma Yaqoob, a British Muslim running for parliament with the relatively new RESPECT party founded by the fiesty George Galloway, was on BBC World the other day, and had some good analogies to say. She became politically active after someone spat on her in the street following the September 11 attacks. She likened the bombers, and the ideology behind their act, to parasites feeding off a festering wound. If the wound is treated, they will not find something to feed on. She objected to the oft repeated oversimplification that terrorists  are after the West because they hate democracy and freedom. She rightly attributed the root causes to meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, be it colonialism, wars, support of dictators, ...etc.Similarly, Azzam Tamimi of the Muslim Association of Britain told a rally in Russell Square, near the scene of the bus bombing, that:

The Muslim community would not suffer in silence for the crimes of the suicide bombers. "We will continue to talk, we will continue to write and we will continue to challenge the government. I say to Muslims, do not bow to pressure to keep accepting those pointing fingers at you. "Say, 'No, I'm not responsible for what happened on July 7. My heart bleeds, I condemn it, yes, but I did not make those boys angry. I did not send those bombs to Iraq. I do not keep people locked in Guantánamo Bay and I do not have anything to do with Abu Ghraib, except to denounce it.' Politicians, see what you have done to this world?"

BBC has two articles, one is Viewpoint: Bombers prepared to die By Crispin Black, Intelligence analyst, Janusian Security Risk Management and the other, an analysis article: Suicide bombing: Desperate tactic. In both articles, the roots of suicide for a cause are quite ancient. It also mentions guerilla warfare as a step in between conventional war, where each side tries to win a military victory by armed power, and suicide bombing. The article rightly says that this is a tactic of asymmetric warfare, when one side cannot match the other side in military power. Suicide bombers have often, but not always, been affected directly by some sort of injustice, such as death of a spouse, relative or friend. So we have geo-political factors (foreign countries meddling with local affairs), lack of opportunity to change local politics peacefully (local dictatorship, lack of democracy), lack of economic opportunity (economic recession, disparity between rich and poor), social problems, and all that is needed is religious extremism to complete the mix. We must eliminate the root causes, instead of fighting the symptoms.