Bite as often as you wish - I think you're unlikely to change your views in response to anything I say, to be honest. But by answering them I can present a counterpoint to other people. However, beyond pointing out that I never said what you say I said above, I don't feel there's any clarification of my words required. My point was fairly clearly argued, I feel. Re-wording the same thing over and over again would only water it down and allow the forest to be hidden by the trees.
You've done substantially more than "simply come at the suicide angle" which is why I replied. You have taken a very minor item - that someone who has no opportunities might be more likely to end their life - which you have not supported. (Fun fact: suicide rates are higher in richer neighbourhoods than poorer according to Time magazine). You have then applied this minor item in the context of a discussion where it doesn't seem to apply. (This bomber was accepted at university and also employed at the time of the bombing). Then finally and most importantly, have blown it up to equal footing with massively more significant factors such as his parents being Libyan dissidents and his returning and living in Libya which is, since we bombed it to Hell, a factory for terrorists.
The first of those things you did wrong can be attributed to an assumption easily made because it 'seems obvious'. The other two I can only attribute to a pre-existing angle you wish to push.