This was published in the Guardian yesterday: http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1818247,00.html

> The indiscriminate mass murder of innocent people is terrorism, pure and simple.

Innocent people? What does innocence have to do with the right to live with dignity? If all those who died had covert subscriptions to pornographic magazines, would this have been justified?

Terrorism? The writer seems to have been reading too much of the American media and evidently believes that the word "terrorism" conveys a greater measure of shock than the word "murder". I'm sure we are glad that it was simple terrorism, and not the complicated variety.

> It can never be justified

But it was justified! It was planned and executed - that could scarcely have been done without justification. Justifiable to me - no. To millions of Indians - no. To millions of people who believe in the shared right of all humans to live with dignity - no. To those who did this - yes.

> The first thing to say is that anyone who targets suburban commuter trains is a criminal

A criminal is one who breaks a law. So if targeting suburban commuter trains (as opposed to urban school buses, for example) is against the law, then one who does so is indeed a criminal. Good catch, that.

> It would be wrong to jump to any conclusions, and wrong for hotheads to mount reprisals that would only play into the hands of hate-mongering fanatics.

So that is what is wrong! I wish this writer had written earlier that killing people is wrong - we might have avoided great human loss. Perhaps it's not too late.