N.Ram is a known communist/chinese sympathezier. On a visit to tibet, he paid glorious tribute to the chinese actions in Tibet — no word on the many atrocities committed by chinese in tibet.
Today, there is a news item in indian express on 5 hindu sheperds killed by having their throats slit by terrorists. The express called these terrorists ‘militants’ although it’s a clear act of terrorism.

Even now, there is a refusal in the Western world to recognise that what is happening in Kashmir is the same thing that happened on 9/11. The only difference was in scale. If you don’t agree, I present Exhibit A – the difference in coverage attached to the London and Sharm-Al-Sheikh bombings. When ‘third world’ people die, it hardly registers a blimp.

I guess I was somewhat out of line with the way I expressed this, and I certainly do not intend anyone any harm. But think about the fact that terrorists in Kashmir are killing innocent people with arms provided by Pakistan, a lot of which were acquired from the US, which knew fully well the kind of use they would be put to. A lot of the ongoing jihad started in Afghanistan, where the CIA fought alongside the ‘Mujahideen’ and Pakistani radicals. Of course, America had no idea who they were dealing with!

When it comes to terrorism in India, all we get is sermons and words like ‘militancy’, ‘insurgency’, ‘rebels’ etc. Western double standards are not restricted to terrorism, though, witness the CNOOC-Unocal fiasco. These same people preach free trade to us? And want us to open up our retail, oil etc. sectors?

I totally agree. Shouldn’t “The Hindu” be really called “The Anti-Hindu”?

Nitin, as some others have pointed out, Somini Sengupta may not have two neurons to spare, but there is the editorial policy of NYT to consider. It is “terrorism” only if the target is US; otherwise it could be “militants,” “insurgents,” “malcontents,” or even “freedom fighters.”

Some years ago I was disgusted enough to write a letter to NPR (National Public Radio) asking them why they use this policy.

BTW, there is no need to insult Berkeley waitresses merely because a cretin was once a waitress in Berkeley.

A very deft highlighting of Ms. Sengupta’s (none-too-elegant) dancing around the word terrorist. It’s amusing that even those suspected of killing civilians are ‘insurgents’.

This is a classic case of an editorial masquerading as reportage. Ms. Sengupta uses the oldest technique–she simply uses those sources whose quotes she can fashion into an argument for her point of view.

To give Ms. Sengupta some credit I should note that she quotes some (anonymous) diplomats on the busy jihad factories of Pakistan. However, she goes on to suggest that the General might not approve of what his errant subordinates are upto. In classic CYA fashion, she merely notes in passing that Pakistan’s critics tend to be skeptical of its bona-fides.

After all, Great Leader can never be wrong;if only his evil advisers would listen to him ! Of course, if the General can’t or won’t rein in the jihadi terrorists, I doubt that American action or inaction will do anything to increase India’s trust of the General and his minions.

I wouldn’t put it down to Ms. Sengupta’s lark as a cocktail waitress, however. These hardworking folks tend to be quite sensible, compared to many of those in the reportorial classes, anyway.

But lemmme see: Calcutta-born. Berkeley education. English and Development Studies Major….’nuff said. I’d guess the source is a terminal political-correctness (shared by her bosses and much of the elite media in the West).

Kumar

Even the British Establishment talks about ‘bombers’ not terrorists