If we are hell bent on justifying the riots as acts made inevitable by the brutal killings by the Islamic militants, how is our line of reasoning any different from those of the militants who see their acts absolutely justified in the name of religion/Jihad? The loss of Nepalese lives and property, inside Nepal or outside, is the same; the agony is the same. Vandalizing the country's poor infrastructure out of revenge/frustation and placing innocent Nepali people directly at the locus of our irrational wrath do not serve to mollify the conscience of a nation already stifling in political decadence. We can not be selective in deciding whom to punish when we suffer a loss. Sitara's article in no way condones murder-- in Iraq, in Nepal, anywhere. Islamic fanatics took away the dear lives of twelve Nepalese but equally disturbing fact is that similar acts of murder and violence are almost commonplace in Nepal thesedays. Are we defining murder as brutal and revenge-worthy when it is committed by a non-Nepalese? What about our own Nepalese who are on a killing frenzy in the name of a new nation and in the name of establishing peace? What makes us just sit back and gawk at the political leaders for a solution to the killings inside the nation while we turn to rioting when Islamic militants commit similar crime? How many took to the streets after reading in the newspapers about a Nepali sacrificed as a "bali ko boko" in front of his family? How many turned to violence upon hearing the news of a Nepali buried alive by the peace force accusing him of being a terrorist? Go to the remote villages, the air is pregnant with such stories but subdued in fear. Have we unleased our anger at the muslims because we fear no reprisal from them since they are a minority in the nation whereas we are fully aware of the consequences that might befall upon us if we were to irate the revolutionaries or the " peace keepers" and therefore we take their human rights violations as "business as usual"? - Scats