I think the idea of these so-called terrorist actions in form of indescriminate bombings, not minding who the victims are, so long as they occur in places branded as infedls' lands, as well as, places where statements will made, are becoming a nuisance rather than actual expressions of oppresion, as the case may be.
It does not matter if the perpetrator is a muslim or christian, or, of any other faith for that matter. What should be the focus is that:
ARE THESE ACTIONS ACHIEVING THEIR DESIRED GOALS?
ARE THE INTENDED TARGETS BEING DELAT WITH OR NOT?
On the other hand if the answers to these quetions are things like:
THE BOMBINGS ARE AFFECTING NON-FOES ALIKE.
THE FOES ARE BEING STEELED BY THE BOMBINGS.
NON-FOES GET HIT AS WELL.
SYMPATISERS TO THE CAUSE GET HIT AS WELL.
Then, is there not a reason to have re-think on the manner of these onslaughts? Is it not neccessary to begin to view the necessity of reviewing the whole strategy of these acts? Is there no other way through which the aim can be achieved with minimum casualties? Or, is the objective just to realise mournings in as many households as possible, not minding who is going to grieve?
If we begin to realise the veering of these actions from their targets, then we will begin to realise the reputation being built. Whichever way you view it, at every point in every struggle, if reaslistic appraisals are not done to bring about a harmonisation of the aims of the struggle with the existing structure availlable to eventually arrive at the inevitable negotiation table, then the struggle losses realism. It is at such a junction that the struggle begins to get questioned.
Therefore, to me i think it is about time the powerful forces behind the acts begin re-evaluate the modus operadi of their followers, while the soldiers should begin to understand that a fight that is not understood by bystanders will continually get no positive response and would eventually get extinguished by the necessity for a better distaraction.