Good grief....

Specifically, scholars, researchers, and others, disagree over whether Islam forbids suicide in the process of attacking enemies or the killing of civilians.

Which "scholars," researchers, and "others" are referenced, here? The paragraph you cite is not even referenced, although CPOST is mentioned. (CPOST is not qualified to comment on Islamic jurisprudence, by the way.) As far as I am aware, every major Islamic Scholar who has addressed the subject has agreed with opinions laid down by the First Three Generations regarding the laws violated by such a practice. Specifically, the general prohibitions against:

• Suicide
• Murder
• The killing of civilians in wartime
• The killing of women, children, and the elderly
• The violation of the laws of a host country (i.e. outside Darul Islam)
• The commission of acts of war outside those conditions set by Islamic Law and the precepts of the Islamic State. (The Islamic State does not currently exist at this time.)

Then there is the specific prohibition against "indiscriminate killing" to consider. That makes seven major violations of Islamic Law, and that's only off the top of my head. Given time, I could come up with more. The only people in confusion about Islam's stance on the issue are those who are unfamiliar with Islam. For those people, it is sufficient to point out that suicide is specifically forbidden in both the Qur'an and the Sunnah, the two sources of Islamic Law. (e.g. Qur'an 4:29)

Those who cite religious factors as an important influence among Muslim terrorists speak without knowledge. They do not know Islam, and they do not know Muslims. They should, however, know terrorists sufficiently well by now to be aware of the factors involved in such acts. To wit:

1. The perpetrator must be sufficiently ignorant such that knowledge will not prevent wrong action.
2. The perpetrator must be sufficiently angry such that rationality will not prevent wrong action.
3. The perpetrator must be sufficiently goaded (usually by a third party) such that he/she chooses wrong action.

The above is true regardless of political or religious affiliation (if any).

Some may argue that the terrorist is not to blame for his/her actions as he/she has been "tricked" into committing such a heinous act. That is faulty reasoning. Regardless of circumstance, and no matter how understandable the dupe, a person's actions are ultimately the result of choice. Only those who have no ability to determine right from wrong (e.g. the insane or very young) are acquitted of the choices they make.

While I am perfectly capable of discussing any of the points I touched upon with a series of seminars, the above response should be sufficient in scope.

TL; DR: I know my religion much, much better than the source(s) you cite.

Wow, Luckz, this is in a very poor taste. You couldn't be more wrong with what you tried to say with your quote. Have you ever tried talking to many muslims about these things? Have you ever considered that an american project might be a little biased?
I am deeply disappointed in you and have to wonder about the underlying tone here and if it represents your political views.