Why Kashmiri Muslims and Separatists won't condemn LET killings

As India woke up to the shocking incident in Sopore of the killing of two Christian teenage sisters by Lashkar-E-Taiaba Islamic Militants, condemnation poured in from everywhere except the fundamentalist separatists in the Kashmir Valley. Some tried to justify the killings not before faintly saying that 'killing wasn't sort of necessary'. But many were disappointed that by the end of the day, no mass condemnation took place. I was very impressed by Omar Abdullah's statement on the incident when he called a spade a spade and said that if this had been an accidental killing by the Security forces the whole valley in Kashmir would have been up in arms but there's barely muted condemnation this time around. The Timesnow video of Omar Abdullah's Comment on Sopore incident.

Well said Omar

Islmaic Extremism/Fundamentalism and Kashmir

One's gotta say a "Well said Omar" here, but why does the average Kashmiri think that these barbaric militants bent-upon-murder-driving the region back in to the stone age are more of their brothers than the average Joes who make up the Indian security forces even when they come from the valley and have a Khan or Hussain as their last names? Is this simply a result of the classic case of a Muslim society's yearning for the dirty and decadent green swamp brimming with rotting algae on the other side just because it is indeed 'Greener' (in more than one sense of the word)? Or is it that the enemy of the enemy is a friend and  if need be, can be dispensed with once the real enemy (for them: the Indian state) has been defeated?

In either case, the Kashmiri people are wrong in buying in to these projections from the Separatist leaders in the valley and are making a grave mistake. For one, history has repeatedly demonstrated that fundamentalism always leads a society into chaos instead of the peace and brotherhood it promised at the beginning (The irony being that Islamic fundamentalism has been used in the majority of such demonstrations by History).

For another,  they must remember their precious Separatist leaders, in conveniently appealing to the idea of an all Islamic state governed by Sharia law or a derivative of that are in fact, not just taking Kashmir farther away from all that defines what India is all about but all that Kashmiriyat stands for as well. More importantly, they are taking Kashmir closer in ideology to Pakistan, is there any doubt that Pakistan will be the de facto ruler of Kashmir even if not de jure. All separatists -- so called moderates and the hardliners tow Pakistan's line even now what guarantee can they ever give to the Kashmiris that they won't post 'Azadi'?