It has been said that to address the problem of terrorism one has to examine its 'root cause'. Remove that cause, appease the would-be terrorist, and he has no reason to be a terrorist. That is the logic. But using the recent terrorist bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad as a case in point, what is the root cause?

It was the United Nations that opposed the US-led ouster of Saddam Hussein under the pretext of destroying weapons of mass destruction, which until now have not been found.

After the ending of Iraq's war, most UN's work in Iraq now aims to improve the lives of Iraqi civilians - eg, fixing electrical systems, providing food, nurturing a free press.

So what is the symbolism in attacking the UN when there are obviously other more culpable targets, like for example the US occupying forces?

We appear to be very quiet about the terrorist actions in Baghdad. I do not hear any loud official condemnation of the devastation.

May it be that besides blind rage and fury, there is actually no root cause to terrorism, and that nothing will be achieved by way of ameliorating the problem by laying blame on the wrong causes, parties and factors?

Terrorist bombing is driven by irrationality, and the proof is in the targets aimed at - innocent civilians, not policy makers in (say) the Pentagon. Take the Bali and Marriot Hotel bombings. In each case there were more locals killed or maimed than Westerners.

So how does one rationalise a cause of terrorism with a view to eradicating it at source when the latter is driven by irrationality and blind anger?