Soon after the news was announced, the media began its customary onslaught of coverage; and most of the partisans have not surprised anyone, certainly not me.
There are those that are lauding the success and then, there are those that are blaming Bush, crying conspiracy, and/or blaming America in general (for everything wrong with the world). But beyond that, I hope there are some that sit on the fence (those that are confused but have potential to come to some stark realizations) that are noticing the recent events, and are beginning to see that these people are not going to quit. Whether we quit or whether we don't, they will still be at war with the west.
Let's look at this essay by Victor Davis Hanson, found at RCP, earlier today. Overall, it's a bit off topic. But this part is particularly important for the basis of my argument:
So, what then does matter to so many Westerners about this war?
Our fear, of course. We want to avoid messy complications like stirring up another 9/11 or Madrid bombing, spiking oil prices to over $80 a barrel, or treading on politically incorrect ground by criticizing the "other" of the former Third World.
The Western press -- usually so careful to condemn hate speech -- is utterly silent about Arab racism. But a European paper recently published a cartoon portraying Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as a Nazi, secure that no rabbi would issue threats that could cost the editors their heads.
Did you get that?
It's easier to be critical of Israel, because Israelis do not issue fatwas. Christians sometimes threaten boycotts, but they do not issue fatwas either. For that matter, when did a Hindu, Buddhist, or a Hare Krishna issue one?
Not only is the Western media slanting things, some of them have been caught using tapes and photos from staged scenes. This tells me two things. There is not a lot of true freedom for the western media to operate without getting some "freelance journalist" (movie producer) to provide footage. That may account for some of it, but why do they not challenge and scrutinize the material given them by these sources? Or more likely, it could be the fact that there is a genuine fear that if they do not look favorably on the Muslim world, they will lose the flow of oil and they will have a death sentence pronounced against them by some radical and fanatical imam.
But whatever the reasonings, playing their game is not going to stop them. Negotiations are not going to stop them. Cease-fires, suspensions of activity, nothing will stop them. They may lay low for awhile. They may feign negotiations, like they did when Clinton tried to get Arafat and Barak to broker a deal for peace. (Many blame Clinton for not having a deal. That is not fair, he had Barak willing to give Arafat everything he wanted except Jerusalem, but Arafat did not want peace and rejected it.) But they always reject the deal in the end and they always start more hostilities.
So, what does all of this have to do with the story of averted terror?
With all of the coddlings the BBC and other British news agencies give to the Muslim world, it was not enough to dissuade 24 or more Muslims from hatching this plot and stand willing to carry it out. With all of the lip service given to the Muslim world by European governments and media, you'd think that they would be willing to direct all of their energies elsewhere. But they do not appear to be very charitable, at least not towards those that have bent over backward and allowed them to assimilate them into a free western society and to practice their religion, virtually unhindered.