ISIS or ISI? What difference does it make? Few days back, Turkey, led by Erdogan, rebuked Bangladesh for its crackdown on the Islamists. Egypt refused to become party to a Saudi led anti-ISIS coalition. Terror attacks happened in Egypt. Now, we have one in Bangladesh. Turkey, along with Saudi Arabia, are the prime benefactors of ISIS. The United States has been supplying weapons to the so called "moderates" in Syria. On a related or unrelated note, the US has been seeking a military base in Bangladesh. India and Sheikh Hasina thwarted those efforts. There were reports of the US indirectly aiding the Jamiat-i-Islami to weaken the Sheikh Hasina government. There are enough circumstances to speculate that ISIS might have been behind this. On the other hand, there is enough reason to believe that ISI might have been involved. It is quite possible that the US might not have been involved in any tangible way, meaning, they might have created elements that would weaken Shiekh Hasina, but did not expect these elements to carry out such terror attacks. It is well known that Pakistan has cultivated a lot of ISI agents in Bangladesh over the years. It is not impossible that the Saudis might have simply used ISI's help to carry out this attack. At the end of the day, terrorist is terrorism. What difference does it make whether it is Hijbul Mujahideen or it is some ISI or ISIS linked Bangaldeshi terrorists killing innocents? Whoever is behind it, the response should be the same.