I thinks its a flawed analogy. Jehadist attacks (in india) do have a purpose too, they don't blindly attack for religion. In kashmir, its to gain land and power over the land, The attacks on India have been not to propagate their ideology rather to separate the religious divide between the common hindu-muslim population and create and overall atmosphere of micommunication, instability among religious communities. What my core point is that, you cannot justify one type of terrorism and mark it as 'Manageable with a solution' and regard the other one as completely vile. Terrorism is terrorism, PERIOD. People have died, human life is lost! Provided the right guidance, ANYONE can be stopped from terrorism, but providing guidance is a loose term. Muslim fundamentalists do not follow Islam to spread terrorism, they USE islam as a scapegoat to propagate their own social, power-hungry needs. Separating them from the religion won't change their mentality, a fundamentalist will always think extreme no matter what religion he/she follows. Its very easy to come up with excuses and differentiation when the reality is that terror does not know religion, its ALL a game of power.
