At the time of this writing, Indian commandos are fighting terrorists in various hotels and other sites in Mumbai. The death toll has exceeded 130, many more wounded, and hostages aplenty. Instead of the usual surreptitious bombs, this time the terrorists made a bold frontal assault with guns blazing. Apparently this is to protest the targeting of Muslims by government authorities, India's current cozying up to the US, the Kashmir issue, etc. It is very easy to find reasons to kill people if one is so inclined.
I have used the term "terrorists" freely above. By definition, it is negative and prejudiced. The attackers in Mumbai surely see themselves as enforcers of justice, preservers of their religion, and protectors of their own. They may be justified, to some extent, in their self perception. The question then is whether their method of protest is acceptable. Right off, it is difficult to justify the killing and terrorizing of innocent people. BUT, and here I am going out on a limb, when there is no other means to make people listen to you, is this sort of violence not the only way?
The end result in Mumbai is foregone. The security forces will kill or capture the terrorists. There will be hostage casualties. Once more, "mindless mujaheddin menace" will be vilified by all and sundry. Violent force will have been squashed by counter-violence. And so it will continue.