RAJAWALI MUDA

I had took some time before, wondering what really makes those guys committed those bombings, eventually I came up with some ideas, logical things I suppose. What stimulates them using bombs? hurting others??

On her blogs, she criticize her friend's thinking about the motive of those bombers, cause she thinks, this is really irrational, hurting our indonesian fellows, just to tell something to Americans

well I kinda agree with her friend

"they need something to show to others that people like them still exist, and so be careful and stop hurting my fellow moslems"(at least those are the words I found at Tempo mags)

Quote :

"He *Dr. Azahari of course, not my friend* had to do all of those bombing things because he had no other better choice. It's a kind of publication, campaign or whatever it is (I should say this is a protest, if it could said so) to message people in the world that the world isn't fair"

the thing that made them do such thing is all about cost and benefit, what really encourages them is simply because the cost of speaking in public and protest for every Americans wrong doings is getting higher and higher, and sadly, the benefit of it shrinks when americans showed the world how super power they are. For instance the case of Afghanistan, nobody's willing to even spoke about it when US invade the Iraq.

this had made the relative price of doing a relatively more peacefull ways of protest is higher than just spending couple of millions rupiah( and of course some un known people's lifes) for a deadly bomb, The terror and fear have cost a lot for westerners, specially for their utilities of leisure and safetyness, a great loss for a country like US. the cost is downsloping, and the benefit (for those stupid crooks) arises.

that 's also the reason why anarchy is almost related to relatively more repressive, highly bureaucratic and highly corrupted countries than a more democratic countries. That's why London only had it once, compared to five bombs in Indonesia in the past 5 years. The house of representative and bureaucrats there relatively gives more respect on people thoughts. the case in france, the people there were treated like "dogs"(quoting some media), the only choice and obviously relatively cheap (at least in bars they could have some meal, which unlikely affordable when they are still a free -second rate french man) for them is to rage the cities in france, in order to show the country, "hey!!, we are living creatures here, human beings".
The main difference between dogs and humans is we could burn your fancy cars and make your classy stores turn in to ashes.

the answer of your questions is then again a matter of cost and benefit, it would be easier to hurt people away from they homeland, and the benefit is now those country must spend more money to the third world countries to fight terrorism just to make sure their citizens are protected the way they usually get in their home. what's in it for the terrorist, well, those super power countries now must act as the world's police, and these should weaken their home land defence ( at least tom clancy's book said so, forgive me for being his fans, though)

people who tied large scale bombs to their own body, shows they don't have any more interesting choice in their lives. I'm almost certain that if they have some choices, and the freedom to obtain it, they will choose to live.

its only a matter of price relativity, and how people make their choices, how they respond to incentives. in opposite to ur thinking, this bastards really act as economic agents, at least their action could be explained in economic ways.

these irrational people really act in a rational ways, the only thing that we can do to stop them is to make it(bombings) more costly, than speaking outspokenly in the crowds, but clearly not giving them more incentives to blast their own body by capturing Imam's and Ulama (moslem scholars)