And that's the point. Why give terrorists the publicity they crave? Why try to divine the motivation of psychopaths who are willing to kill innocents along with themselves? Of course such attacks can't be ignored, but can a totally accurate article, correct in every detail, still contribute to a warped view of the dangers in Iraq, or Israel, or other places plagued by suicide bombers?
After I'd read Scott (and TBogg) I found I didn't have anything to add about Tierney's piece. But why do we have this national tic about calling terrorists madmen? Not all psychopaths kill people, not everyone who takes innocent lives is a psychopath, and the majority of people who invoke madness to explain things have no idea what they're talking about. It would be one thing if the exercise was intended to assuage our consciences about the innocents we kill in response, but most people who invoke the term seem rather willing to accept the notion of "collateral damage" and go on with their daily lives. Look, terrorism is a tactic, like it or not. It's an effective use of manpower when faced by a vastly superior foe. The United States has used terrorism and has sponsored terrorism elsewhere. The modern state of Israel was founded by a group of people who used terror as a weapon. It's madness because war is madness, but if it's psychopathy then we're buying $400 billion a year of it.
And what's with the notion of terrorists craving publicity? Are they keeping scrapbooks, do you imagine? How far up your ass does your head have to be to think the rest of the world could point to St. Louis on a map, let alone worry about what people there are seeing on the morning news? The Iraqi insurgency exists because we invaded the country. It's not Afghanistan, it's not Grenada. It's the middle of the fucking Middle East, and what happens there is international news. Sticking your head in the sand may be preferable to its present location, but do it on your own time.