As a devout muslim, or at least so I believe, I find the conclusions in this article quite generalizing and mostly futile. I am living in the Middle East, have many friends who are good muslims and have met quite a few fundamentalists, as you call them. Maybe I can call myself a fundamentalist, too; although I do not exactly agree with that term; because in your language it would automatically come to mean a fanatic or lunatic. Firstly, I should confess that I seriously believe at least some of the terrorist acts being committed in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. are a very desperate or poor muslim being forced to do so by the occupying forces for some kind of gain (like money for saving his starving family, ..). I believe so, because I can not at all see any point in some of the terrorist acts like blowing up the regular marketplace full of innocent and mostly devout muslims. I have seen some of the most fanatic muslims and none of them have such a capacity according to my personal judgement. After all, we are god-fearing people who believe killing one innocent person equals to killing all humanity and such a crime earns you a sure place in the hell. What I heard from local people in Afghanistan ratifies my view; they say there are 2 Taliban, one fighting against the Americans and one fighting for the Americans (killing and abducting civilians to create hatred towards the resistance). Apart from that, I can say that terrorists, as you call them in a generalization, can be divided to at least two separate categories. One group does it out of sheer ignorance of religion or for some kind of material gain. These people usually misinterpret the religious dogmas and rules and use them as an excuse for their inhuman acts. Maybe it's news for you, but most muslims, me included, were in absolute shock when we first heard a muslim blowing himself up knowing that his act would kill innocent people/ fellow muslims along with the enemies and when we heard that some of these people believe it's ok to incidentally/intentionally kill innocent muslims who happen to be near the occupiers. Al Qaeda seems to be one of these groups and these are the ones no muslim in his sane mind approves. The second category includes muslims who fight to defend the lands of Islam or defend / revenge their muslim brethren. This is what applies to some groups announced terrorists by the occupiers and they include Hamas, Hezbollah, and some factions of Taliban. The main problem for regular muslims like me is that the ideological West uses the term terrorist as a weapon against anybody in the muslim world who dares stand in their way. Why are Hezbollah and Hamas called terrorists? ıIf it is because they are killing the civilians, then the same terming should apply to Israel and the U.S. who has more means to avoid civilian killing but to the contrary massacre the civilians intentionally to "make their enemies think twice before attacking again". Why is Iran called a terrorist state while there is no credible proof of their involvement in any terrorist act. All in all, it is such generalizatinos together with constant and intentional attacks on islamic values, be it desecrating the Quran, insulting the prophet of Islam, banning Hijab and minaret,etc., that make regular muslims confused and gives them a perception of being under constant attack, a feeling will only benefit the so-called terrorist organization. the West, if it sincerely wants a fair end to (Islamic!!) terrorism, should stop its hypocrisy. Treat muslims with respect, distinguish between the terrorist and freedom fighters in their language and attitudes, stop their colonial greed in the muslim lands, learn to respect muslims and their way of living (instead of constantly trying to assimilate the muslims) and return their rights back to them, like in Palestine. Now, as the above will most likely never happen, terrorism will continue and muslims will not denounce terrorists as the enemy expects to do, simply because such a kmove would mean complete submission to the enemy.