NYT writes about terror bombing in India. Guess what's missing?

Steve Gilbert of Sweetness & Light catches the New York Times being clueless again about jihadi violence. Perhaps if their editors got out among ordinary Americans they would realize how stupid this evasion of the obvious makes them look. After highlighting the most egregious evasive verbiage in a Times account of a bus bombing in India that claimed 45 lives, Gilbert summarizes:
To review, for two days dozens of bombs have gone off in a region where Muslims have attacked Hindus countless times over the years.

(What the New York Times merely describes as "attempts to provoke violence between Hindus and Musliims." You see, the bombings were not violence in themselves. And of course no group was actually behind them. They just happened.)

Furthermore, an Islamic terrorist group has even claimed responsibility for the bombings. A group that was responsible for similar bombings just two months ago.

Still, the New York Times only sees fit to mention with any specificity "Hindu-on-Muslim violence," which was done in reprisal for "a train fire" that obviously broke out spontaneously.

Steve Gilbert of Sweetness & Light catches the New York Times being clueless again about jihadi violence. Perhaps if their editors got out among ordinary Americans they would realize how stupid this evasion of the obvious makes them look. After highlighting the most egregious evasive verbiage in a Times account of a bus bombing in India that claimed 45 lives, Gilbert summarizes:
To review, for two days dozens of bombs have gone off in a region where Muslims have attacked Hindus countless times over the years.

(What the New York Times merely describes as "attempts to provoke violence between Hindus and Musliims." You see, the bombings were not violence in themselves. And of course no group was actually behind them. They just happened.)

Furthermore, an Islamic terrorist group has even claimed responsibility for the bombings. A group that was responsible for similar bombings just two months ago.

Still, the New York Times only sees fit to mention with any specificity "Hindu-on-Muslim violence," which was done in reprisal for "a train fire" that obviously broke out spontaneously.