Research on suicide terrorism is often plagued by methodological problems such as selection bias and selection effects, use of anecdotal evidence that can be contradicted with competing anecdotal evidence, small sample size, and lack of measurement validity. Whereas theoretical advancement in this field is impressive and some theoretical arguments intriguing, the empirical analysis and evidence are often problematic and do not lend confidence in the results. We are aware of the counter-argument, that it is better to conduct research based on a small sample size and anecdotal evidence than not to conduct it at all. Yet, since some results and inferences from this line of research often lead to policy recommendations adopted by governmental entities, authors who study suicide terrorism and other forms of terrorism should be much more cautious about their "findings", claims, and policy recommendations which are potentially based on invalid inferences. We illustrate these points with the Kruglanski et al. (2009) article.