Since the early 1980s, when the Lebanese Shia Hezbollah (with Iranian Khomeinist funds and training) and the Sri Lankan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam-LTTE (Marxists/Hindus/Tamil secessionists) instigated the regular use of suicide terrorists as an implement of war, suicide bombers have been active in Sri Lanka, Turkey, Kashmir, India, Lebanon, Israel, Russia, the U.K., the U.S., and Indonesia. Failed suicide bombing attempts (including the use of aircraft) are known from France, Spain and Turkey, and successful attempts have been made elsewhere by citizens or residents of Germany and the UK. A New York Times op-ed by Robert A. Pape, "Dying to kill us" (Sept. 22, 2003), concludes that suicide terrorism transcends religious, ethnic, and political boundaries.

But with the exception of the LTTE's acts (and arguably suicidal freak acts like Columbine and Dunblane) all other suicide terrorist acts were committed by Muslims, and of those, all except those by the PKK/Kadek in Turkey and Arafat's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, were committed by members of openly Islamist groups. The LTTE/PKK cases led some to dismiss the role of religion in the motivation of suicide terrorists, but on further analysis, the exception indeed proves the rule.

Is there a "solution" to the suicide bomber phenomenon? If "solution" means putting a stop to it in absolute terms the answer has to be negative- precisely because Seneca was right. Could the incidence of such actions be limited and drastically reduced? Yes, and this has been the case, in Algeria, Turkey and Israel.

Solving the problem of the suicide bomber is of course part a matter of intelligence - get to the likely bomber before he straps on his suicide vest. Get inside radical groups and pass on the relevant intelligence. But the suicide cult will not be defeated by intelligence or military means alone. That is simply impossible.

To stop suicide bombing we must first recognize the kind of war we are facing. This is a war of belief, of ideology. The key concept in suicide bombing is not martyrdom but this notion of jihad - of what constitutes a righteous holy war. In the Quran there are many different interpretations of jihad, some personal and some charitable - alms to the poor. But Bin Laden and the Taliban rely upon just one Quranic verse that declares jihad a religious obligation on all Muslims if another Muslim land has been invaded. While the Qur'an in Surah an-Nisaa (Chapter: ‘The Women'), verse 29 seems specifically to forbid suicide, the chapter's 75th verse enjoins that fighting oppression is commendable. This ambiguity extends to the clergy. In 1997, Jerusalem's Grand Mufti Ekrima Sabri, Imam of the al-Aqsa Mosque and Palestine's most important religious figure, commented in an interview: "The person who sacrifices his life as a Muslim will know if God accepts it and whether it is for the right reason. God in the end will judge him and whether he did that for a good reason or not. We cannot judge. The measure is whether the person is doing that for his own purposes, or for Islam." The ideological debate is whether the bombing is in fact a suicide or related to a jihad against oppression. The Islamic jurist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi had labeled such attacks "among the greatest forms of holy struggle against oppression."

For this "defensive jihad" to work the West must be clearly identified as the aggressor. In this warped morality the 7/7 attacks are a justifiable act of war in revenge for the invasion of Iraq. Bin Laden's world view is false. And there are many Islamic scholars who disagree with his theology and the killing of civilians. And it is obvious that the vast majority of the Muslim faith reject the cult of the suicide bomber. But it is that silent army of fathers, brothers, sisters and mothers who are the only real weapon against another generation of Mohammed Siddique Khans. It is only when this majority engages in a counter-ideological war that suicide bombing will finally die out.

Ultimately, the suicide bomber is just another tool in the arsenal of international terrorist groups. For the bomber, religion is the basic motivation or excuse. Their mission is legitimized by a supreme charismatic leader or Islamic cleric; special recruiters bring the suicide candidate together with the group. Eliminating the enablers- the recruiters and ideologists - wherever they are (apparently in Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and online) must therefore be the first step in eliminating the problem.

The Islamist enemy knows it has something here - suicide bombers, as shown by the recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto - can get where they need to, without being spotted. They can be successful against anyone, as long as that person doesn't hide behind bullet proof glass. Islamist leaders know the suicide bomber has lots of pluses - first they are likely successful (911, 7/7 and the Bhutto case show this), second they separate likely political targets from the crowd (as less politicians walk amidst their people and look like cowards), and finally - perhaps best of all for the enemy - they are a massive political problem for the free world when they are captured (you may have noticed Guantanamo hasn't been happily accepted by the West, let alone by human rights agencies). Lacking any morality themselves, suicide bombers - especially those who fail and survive- eventually lose the West its moral high ground.

If we are to learn the lessons of countries like Egypt and Algeria, there enemy combatants are few and far between. When a human being objectivises himself to the state of becoming a mere bomb there, he loses all his human rights - as he accepts to relinquish the right to life (his and others'). His eyes are already fixed on the next world. He is a genuine target, whether he's got the explosives belt strapped on or not. He is simply helped on his way by Egyptian and Algerian authorities, without the collateral damage.

Guantanamo should house no suicide bombers. Any suspected suicide bombers - according to the Algerian and Egyptian model - should simply face the death penalty.

Shoot to kill. According to their successful security philosophy against suicide bombers, Guantanamo should be returning its enemy combatants to the battlefield for another chance to fight. There, they should be shot dead.

One tragic consequence of accepting Algeria and Egypt's tough policy on suicide bombers is that occasionally the security services will get it wrong. Jean Charles de Menezes is a case in point.  The innocent Brazilian died after being shot on a tube train at Stockwell station in south London on July 22, 2005, the morning after the failed 21/7 bomb attacks in England's capital city.  He was mistaken for a suicide bomber. There will be plenty more Menezes if suicide bombers are to be thwarted by the Algerian/Egyptian model.

The cult of the suicide bomber will eventually burn itself out. This cult of death will one day perish from the face of the earth. Unfortunately the West is going to have to find its teeth again to face down the threat and agree to give the suicide bombers a leg up to Jannah (heaven). Shoot to kill seems the only way forward, combined with a crackdown on failed bombers.

What's the West's priority? Lose the moral high ground by keeping places like Guantanamo open or show the Islamist enemy that suicide bombing was good for them while it lasted, but now that the West has woken up to the phenomenon, it presents a just war extension of the West's right to shoot to kill.

Piers Malcolmson is a retired military officer from a European country.

---

Bookmark with: