Terrorists or militants?

I have used two of the five Bombay stations bombed by terrorists quite a lot. So the bombings left me more than a little dazed. Imagine my surprise when a NY morning paper (the Metro) called the terrorists as "terrorists" within quotes. Needles of suspicion pointed to the more respectable "militants", not terrorists. One blog reported that the NY Times encouraged Indians to be patient. Sure, given that only Indian lives were lost, it is India's duty to be patient. But then, India stayed patient after the national Parliament was bombed in Dec 2003 (note that the photo caption in BBC article on the Parliament attack calls the terrorist attack a "terrorist" attack). However, the Wall Street Journal editorial today called a spade just that - terrorist attacks - and asked India to join hands with the US and Israel to fight world terror. Now, the problem is that WSJ strongly supports the US invasion of Iraq - a very unpopular war in India, among most sections of society. In any case, Indians suspect the US of not pressurising Pakistan enough. So, the call for India to side with the US and Israel is not going to be successful. When the story of our times is recorded, surely a balanced account of Ronald Reagan's contribution to world history must include his Afghan strategy of encouraging terrorists to attack the Soviets (with India bearing the collateral damage of attacks by unemployed, trained terrorists when the Soviets withdrew).

Finally, I read in blogs and newspapers about the Mumbaikar's (Bombayite) spirit and can attest to that from personal experience.