[WS:] First of all, following Joseph C's insight, I do not think we should use the t-word here. Not only that it is too politically charged to be useful, but also that it obscures more than in reveals - as there are many different types of attacks that cannot be easily put under the same label.
Having said that, let me point out that you skipped:
Ch. 9: Altruism and Terrorism Pape presents a Durkheimian analysis of suicide (173-79). "Many acts of suicide terrorism are a murderous form of what Durkheim calls altruistic suicide" (179). Analytical difficulties are acknowledged (180-81). Pape uses suicide rates in general as points of comparison (181-84). Team suicide, which is frequent in suicide terrorism, is an indicator of altruistic suicide, he argues (185-87). Altruistic suicide is a socially constructed phenomenon (187-88): e.g. Hezbollah in Lebanon (188-91), Hamas (191-93), Tamil Tigers (193-95); al-Qaeda (195-96). The altruistic nature of suicide terrorism suggests the number of potential terrorists is large, that suicide terrorism is capable of growing in attractiveness and appeal, and that any attempt at profiling will miss a substantial number of potential suicide terrorists (197-98).
This is far more interesting than asserting that these individuals are manipulated by political operatives. The excellent film 'Paradise Now' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Now brilliantly shows this altruistic aspect of suicide bombers, their social background, and manipulation by political operatives. The 'altruistic' motive is underscored by the episode in which one of the protagonist refuses to blow himself up on a bus with women and children. A very provocative ending of the film is showing him on a bus filled with IDF soldiers.
However, the Durkheimian notion of 'altruistic suicide' has little to do with charity, but instead refers to certain expressions of social solidarity, or rather individuals being overwhelmed by the dictates of that solidarity. A frequent theme of Soviet revolutionary/patriotic cinema showing the protagonist making a conscious decision to fight for the cause even if this means certain death does not quite fit that mold because it involves the presence of conscious choice - the protagonist is under no compulsion to fight, he (rarely she) chooses so because of his love and dedication to the cause.
In my understanding of 'altruistic suicide' - the person makes the decision out of fear and despair rather than love and dedication. He kills himself because of despair that he failed to live to a socially accepted norm and fears that this will bring him disgrace. Rather than being disgraced, he kills himself. Clearly, the concept of honor is a central part of 'altruistic suicide' and more generally 'altruistic violence.' Again, 'altruistic' in the Durkheimian, not the charitable sense, meaning unconditional compliance with rigid social norms. One of the most interesting aspects of Graeber's book on debt is a link between honor and humiliation of others - that to affirm one's honor necessarily entails humiliation of others who "disrespected' him. This is one the central themes in his discussion of warrior societies (he argues that to show that in such societies a warrior would rather kill himself than be 'indebted' to others.)
This logic of honor and humiliation can explain quite a bit of modern violence that other wise may appear as "senseless." Violence is almost never 'senseless' or 'irrational' - it only appears as such to observers who fail to discern its logic. An interesting glimpse into this logic can be found in the French film 'La Haine' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Haine in which marginalized teens and corrupt cops play the game of defending honor and humiliation. There is nothing 'senseless' or 'irrational' in their behavior - except perhaps in the end when one of the cops shoots one of the teens (he did not intend to do it, he merely wanted to humiliate him) - it all follows the logic of honor and humiliation described by Graeber. The same logic underlies much of what appears to be 'senseless' gang-related violence. Assaulting and killing someone who 'dissed' you may appear 'senseless' to liberal middle class observers, but it is anything but that to the persons involved. "Honor' and 'respect' are of utmost importance to these folks - and the only proper response to those who 'dis' it is to humiliate or kill them. Without honor and respect, you lose your social standing, you become chattel not human - and the fear of that is what motivates this seemingly 'senseless' violence either against others or against self.
It is my conjecture that this is - in a significant part - what motivates violence against women in many societies, as well as violence against 'scapegoat' targets (homosexuals, 'infidels,' liberal elites etc.) As modernization breaks the traditional concepts of 'chattel' i.e. groups that by definition are of humble standing vis a vis "honorable people" in that society - this makes humiliating these groups more difficult or even impossible. That fact alone threatens 'honor' of the people i.e. men in the traditional society. This is, for example, why they fear so much of legalizing gay marriages even though it seemingly does not concern them. However, it removes the social stigma of being gay, an that deprives these folks of the 'chattel' that they can 'legitimately' humiliate to maintain their 'honor.' And without this ability to humiliate, they lose their honor, which is a very serious matter to them.
I also think that this is one of the main motivating factors that pushes men, even educated ones, into organized forms of violence - such as gangs or paramilitary groups with political objectives. As social changes emancipate and empower groups of the traditionally "humble" status, this directly threatens their honor and they react to it with violence, like a threatened animal. They may attack women who seek education in Pakistan, lower caste members who seek equal rights in India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India#Caste-related_violence, or for that matter homosexuals who come out in my Alma Mater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi.
I think it is a mistake to claim that this is a result of Western imperialism. Western powers may or may not be one of many agents of modernization - but in this context their are made into scapegoats "responsible" for undermining the traditional social norms. "Traditional" in this context does not mean of course "historical" in the sense of Islamic, Hindu or Christian culture. It is a code word for the medieval system of domination in which men can humiliate chattel (women, slaves, etc.) to maintain their "honor" and thus standing in society.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."